Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Judicial nullification and arms rights | Main | A novel idea »

Great ruling from the 9th Circuit

Posted by David Hardy · 16 May 2016 11:10 AM

It's rare that I can say that, especially on 2A matters, but Teixeira v. Alameda County meets that description. Basically, the county adopted and interpreted a zoning ordinance so that it in effect prohibited all new gun stores, and the 9th Circuit struck that down. Among other things, it recognized that a gun dealer may assert the rights of his future customers, that the Heller "categorical exclusions" (felons, commercial regulations, etc.) are to be read narrowly -- "it's sorta like that" is not good enough -- and suggests that language about a class of laws being "longstanding" and thus presumptively allowed requires a more specific showing that the type of regulation at issue is of a longstanding class.

The victorious attorney was Don Kilmer, of California.

6 Comments | Leave a comment

CDR_D | May 16, 2016 4:34 PM | Reply

Well, nice to get a few crumbs from the table.

However their track record suggests one of their judges will force an 'en banc'. It was, after all, only a 2-1.

They will then sit on it forever like they are doing with 'Peruta". Or until they get a 5th anti-2A vote on the SCOTUS.

Jerry The Geek | May 17, 2016 1:34 AM | Reply

It's not crumbs.

Read the decision. It acknowledges a lot of 2nd Amendment issues which are important. not the least of which is the right to not only Keep and Bear arms .. but to purchase both arms and ammunition.

These are two issues which are becoming more common in anti-gun arguments in America.

Geoff | May 17, 2016 11:13 AM | Reply

And wouldn't that also include the RIGHT TO MANUFACTURE firearms?
hillary wants to shut down the gun companies by repealing the PLCAA should she be elected. Which I hope NEVER HAPPENS.

Richard | May 17, 2016 3:41 PM | Reply

Isn't the language in this ordinance similar to that found in gun-free school zones law? I have seen overlays of some urban areas showing about the same thing.

Anonymous | May 18, 2016 10:22 AM | Reply

As much of a victory as this ruling is, it's a bad sign that SCOTUS needs to rule on it. If SCOTUS can giveth, SCOTUS can taketh away. I think what we're missing is a ruling that would have been found if Jefferson Davis had been tried after the Civil War, namely is succession legal or not? If Yes, then this issue ultimately would be more likely to resolve peacefully. If No, then it resolves with a slave rebellion, which is the bloodiest of all rebellions.

Dave D. | May 20, 2016 4:23 PM | Reply

...Succession isn't a legal question, it's a political question. The Souths loss in 1865 settled it. Had the Confederacy won, the question would have been settled the other way.

Leave a comment