California gun rights groups won an important victory today regarding Alameda County’s ban on gun stores within 500 feet of a residential zone. Read the full opinion here.
In an attempt to further its conclusion that the 500-foot
rule was reasonably tailored, the district court explained that
the Ordinance “merely regulates the places where gun stores
may be located . . . but it does not ban them” and “reasonable
locations to operate a gun store in Alameda County exist, as
evidenced by the many stores that sell guns there.” As
discussed, supra, Teixeira’s First Amendment Complaint contends
otherwise: “there are no parcels in the
unincorporated areas of Alameda County which would be
available for firearm retail sales.” Though such an assertion
may yet prove false, the district court could not simply
assume so on a motion to dismiss. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679
(“When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court
should assume their veracity.”). If on remand evidence does
confirm that the Ordinance, as applied, completely bans new
gun stores (rather than merely regulates their locations),
something more exacting than intermediate scrutiny will be
warranted. See Ezell, 651 F.3d at 708.
If attacked, do you want to be Victor or Victim?
At SacredHonor.US, we hate it when people die embarrassed.
And at Protect.FM, we believe good estate plans protect families.
We make it easy for your family to attain the comfort of skill at arms.
David R. Duringer, JD, LL.M, is a concealed firearm instructor and tax lawyer specializing in business and estate planning; licensed to practice law in the states of California and Washington. He is managing shareholder at Protective Law Corporation, serving Southern California from its Laguna Hills (Orange County) headquarters and a satellite office in Coronado (San Diego County).
© Protective Law Corporation as per date of publication captioned above. All rights reserved unless otherwise noted. Sharing encouraged with attribution and/or link to this page.