9th Circuit rules there is no constitutional right to sell guns.

[boston bean]

[bearsfootball516]

1. I imagine this is going to get shut down in about 5 seconds

[Yonnie3]

2. More information

https://www.courthousenews.com/2nd-amendment-doesnt-include-right-sell-guns-full-9th-circuit-rules/

(CN) – A San Francisco Bay Area county did not violate the Second Amendment by prohibiting three businessmen from opening a gun store near a residential area because there is no protected right to sell guns, an en banc Ninth Circuit ruled Tuesday.

In 2010, John Teixeira and his business partners Steve Nobriga and Gary Gamaz challenged the Alameda County Board of Supervisors’ decision to revoke a permit to open a shop called Valley Guns and Ammo in an unincorporated part of the county.

The board said the proposed location near San Leandro violated a county ordinance prohibiting gun stores within 500 feet of a residential area. The proposed location was 446 feet from a house.
...

[diva77]

3. Here's a link to an article about this

The Slatest

Oct. 11 2017 2:58 PM
9th Circuit Rules There’s No Constitutional Right to Sell Firearms. Will the Supreme Court Care?
By Mark Joseph Stern

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/10/11/ninth_circuit_rules_there_s_no_second_amendment_right_to_sell_firearms.html

Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right to sell firearms to the public? No, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday in Teixeira v. County of Alameda, a landmark decision affirming the government’s constitutional authority to strictly regulate gun shops. The 9–2 ruling is a victory for gun safety advocates who feared judicial aggrandizement of the right to bear arms could invalidate myriad laws governing firearm commerce. The decision may be imperiled, however, if the plaintiffs appeal to the Supreme Court, where conservative justices are increasingly eager to expand the scope of the Second Amendment.

eixeira began as a challenge to a policy passed by Alameda County that imposed certain restrictions on gun sellers. Under the policy, all firearm retailers must obtain a permit, and none may operate near residential areas, schools, day care centers, other gun shops, or liquor stores. The three plaintiffs in the case wanted to open a gun shop but could not get a permit under county policy. They sued on behalf of themselves and their potential customers, alleging that the policy violated the Second Amendment in two ways—by preventing would-be customers from buying a gun, and by prohibiting them from selling firearms. A federal district court dismissed the claim, but a panel of judges for the 9th Circuit revived it by a 2–1 vote. The court then elected to rehear it en banc, ultimately deciding that the county policy passed constitutional muster. SNIP

[sarisataka]

4. Think it through

Before celebrating too much

[Hoyt]

8. It's good to see courts standing up to gun profiteers. It'll be a long fight, so gunners still have

plenty of time to run out and buy some more gunz.

[sarisataka]

36. Precedent Hoyt, precedent

If this ruling stands, look for it to be expanded far beyond gun shops.

[citood]

45. I see this case as more of a zoning issue than RTBA issue

Cities across the land ban things based on zoning or proximity...most notably alchohol sales.

[Hoyt]

48. Is that your real fear? Besides, your buddies in the NRA will jump on this. Gotta protect your

access to more guns. Unfortunately to protect your guns, we have to protect Paddock types access, Nazis, racists, George Zimmeran's, 3%ers, and worse.

[AngryAmish]

10. There is no constitutional right to sell newspapers.

The Constitution is silent on the issue.

[bitterross]

12. I have to disagree with you there

When the United States adopted the First Amendment in 1791, the press meant printed books, newspapers, and pamphlets, also called handbills. Newspapers were for-profit enterprises that sold their newspapers. The printers (the presses) made their living off of the books and handbills. Not abridging their freedom would most certainly include the right to sell their product.

So I would have to disagree that there is not a specific right to sell newspapers in First Amendment.

[AngryAmish]

14. Then wouldn't a $4,000 per issue tax on newspapers make sense?

First and foremost, it would raise revenue.

Second, it would prevent the spread of fake news.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Well, at least you grasp the scope of the problem.

And have an idea how the courts may have ruled on this issue in the past.

[bitterross]

49. No one is talking about taxing sales of guns here

I do not understand your response. No one in this case is talking about taxing the sale of guns. They are restricting where guns can be sold.

Since the courts have said that free speech zones are constitutional I would think that the concept of zones where guns can be sold should also be constitutional.

[jmowreader]

63. Hold on a second...

This would be like my company going to court to fight for the right to set up a newsstand on a traffic median in violation of a law prohibiting commercial activities on traffic medians. We would lose...the law doesn’t say we can’t sell newspapers at all, just that we can’t sell them there.

I haven’t been to Alameda County, but I would assume there are places where it’d be perfectly legal to set up a gun store, and they should rent one of them. Similar laws are in place for bars, and there are bars in that County.

[bitterross]

64. I agree. I think you are correct. /nt

[sarisataka]

37. You get it

[FBaggins]

43. Or no right to provide abortions

I don't think this one is particularly murky. I suspect that if regulation approaches the point where the individual right is constrained (a state zones all gun stores out of existence, etc.)... then it will be found to be clearly unconstitutional. If, however, it's a legitimate exercise of zoning powers (e.g., "we don't want gun stores in specific areas of the city&quot , it shouldn't be in much danger of being overturned.

[mountain grammy]

22. Think what through?

that local governments don't have the right to set standards for their localities? Allow a liquor store next door to a school,or a gun store for that matter?
If the courts overturn this, local governments will have no authority over what business operates where in their areas. Think that through.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. It's been overturned before.

Lets say you were a legislature that found a particular newspaper publication obnoxious. Let's say there was a criteria by which you could rules-game their corporate headquarters right out of the city.

Think that would fly?

[mountain grammy]

29. So there's a real case like that?

Do you know the decision?

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Primary landmark in the case of a newspaper would be Near v. Minnesota. (1931)

The state was playing games trying to ban obnoxious publications. It didn't work.

MacDonald vs. Chicago struck down what amounted to a ban. If the regulation in question in the OP amounts to a ban, meaning, NO reasonable locations that aren't zoned within 500ft of residences, then it would likely be overturned.

If there are lots of locations... It might stand. But it's a troubling precedent that could be used against a number of things we take for granted as civil liberties.

A hot button issue that has worn paths on this SORT of zoning issue would be adult stores, and they do tend to get overturned when the zoning laws are too restrictive.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-adult/new-york-court-overturns-zoning-law-on-adult-clubs-video-stores-idUSBRE87U07720120831

[Orrex]

50. What applies to one amendment need not apply to another

For instance, the Speedy Trial Clause stipulates a 30-day minimum before a trial can begin, to allow the defendant time to prepare. Would you be cool with a 30-day wait on gun purchases?

I suspect not. Instead, it seems clear that the requirements and implications of one amendment do not necessarily pertain to another amendment.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. I am ok with a 30 day wait on gun purchases.

I don't know that such a period has any practical utility in halting the criminal mis-use of firearms, but I would not view that as an infringement upon my rights. I know a lot of gun owners that would claim it is, but I wouldn't agree with them.

Would you support a bypass for that waiting period for say, someone who has a current restraining order for a Domestic Violence issue? (The victim, not the perpetrator, if that's not clear )

[Orrex]

57. Whoa--I honestly didn't expect that.

Would you support a bypass for that waiting period for say, someone who has a current restraining order for a Domestic Violence issue? (The victim, not the perpetrator, if that's not clear)

With the disclaimer that I anticipate this subject spiraling beyond my ability to answer sensibly, I'd say that such a waiver sounds like a good idea. I'm not even pushing for the 30-day wait, just using that as an example.

Thanks for the frank and straightforward answer. (that's not sarcasm).

[AtheistCrusader]

58. No worries. I actually support a number of regulations and waiting periods aren't intrinsically bad.

I'd have to do some searching, but I think around Sandy Hook I started suggesting here (and other places) that we start regulating semi-autos like we do for full-auto/burst capable firearms.

Fully automatic weapons must be registered to the owner.
Purchase requires a full background check, with fingerprints, not just a NICS phone call to a database that may or may not be complete.
200$ tax stamp. (Current price, ideally that price tag would be lower, as I do not seek to price poor/middle class out of firearms)
The BATFE can check up on owners and make sure they still have the guns.


This would combat a number of issues simultaneously. A Domestic Violence offender could have their firearms seized. Someone with a DV charge/restraining order must hand over all firearms. (Lautenberg Amendment) That's basically voluntary. Sure, they're a criminal if they don't, but someone planning violence with a firearm doesn't really care for those distinctions. With registration, the police know to show up, and collect XYZ weapons. They would have a list to work off of. Right now it's more a case of 'are you sure that's all of them?'.

It would ruin straw purchasers. Right now firearms sales records are paper trail, and difficult to aggregate. Basically you can't. So until someone who legally buys firearms to flip them on the black market gets caught by a sting or some other means of noticing high-volume traffickers, they can basically get away with it. With registration, you recover 2-3 firearms from crime scenes, you can check the registry and knock on someone's door. We just don't have that today. Last major straw purchaser I know of moved over 200 firearms before they got him. That's simply unacceptable.

A full background check will catch problems that currently might not get reported up from state to federal NICS databases. State reporting to the feds is a carrot/no stick sort of arrangement. States aren't required to report crimes, but they are incentivized with funding they can receive from the federal government if they comply. The carrot is fine, but there should also be a stick. (This is where the Virginia Tech shooter got through the cracks)


I'm actually quite supportive, even though it would cost me personally considerably, of various gun control regulations. But I do want some assurances that these things don't turn into a ban, or don't amount to a ban.

[mountain grammy]

31. The courts have struck down laws that

are unconstitutional, even against precedent, like Jim Crow laws which were found constitutional and then later found to be unconstitutional.

But local zoning laws? Can't see where this applies, but we'll see.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. They've definitely gotten into Zoning laws before.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-adult/new-york-court-overturns-zoning-law-on-adult-clubs-video-stores-idUSBRE87U07720120831

Not exactly a perfect parallel, but there rarely is.

[mountain grammy]

34. Thanks for the info..

Maybe I'll take my town to court for refusing to allow marijuana dispensaries anywhere in town.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. I am considering that in my town as well.

Why... Why do we keep having to have these same damn fights with people across every inch of the nation... I don't understand.

[sarisataka]

38. I believe local governments do have the right

to set standards, as long as they are not creating a defacto ban on a legal business.

This ruling would easily allow municipalities to zone out any business the local government disagrees with. I'm sure you can come up with examples of controversial businesses certain states would love to use this on.

[mountain grammy]

42. I think so too..

This town isn't banning gun stores, just restricting distance. Sometimes that's too large a burden and does create a defacto ban, but not sure if that's the case here.

I think this is a good ruling and hope it stands but I stand corrected on the courts not weighing in on zoning issues. Think I'd know better by now. Most of DU is so way smarter than me.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. The heart and soul of intelligence is curiousity, and openness.

Just in talking to people, to discuss things with an open mind... don't sell yourself short on smarts.

[Not Ruth]

5. Aren't sales of things managed by states unless prohibited by feds? The state collects sales tax.

[Fred Sanders]

6. Merchants of death may not permitted near residential areas? Of course it is constitutional!

[Wounded Bear]

7. We had a similar ordinance in Seattle...

resulted in a few gun stores to move out of town.

Applied to ammo, too, IIRC.

[maxsolomon]

11. It was just a per-bullet tax to pay for the costs of Gun Violence

Big 5, Outdoor Emporium, etc. went nowhere. Butch's Guns is still on 99.

The move-out threats were bluster for Dori Monson to rend his garments about.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. The city also fought for over a year in court to hide how little revenue the tax brought in.

About 1/3 of the low end of their projections.

[maxsolomon]

59. never heard that. who/how did they fight in court?

was there a FOIA request they refused to honor?

I don't subscribe to the Blethen Times, was this reported on there?

[AtheistCrusader]

60. I don't know what a blethen times is.

Will the Seattle PI do?
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Seattle-to-release-gun-tax-records-after-court-11728387.php

They spent more money defending an attempt to hide the revenue (377 days in court) than the tax brought in.

Edit: OH a Seattle Times joke. I didn't know the publisher's name.

[maxsolomon]

61. Blethen Times is the Seattle Times

owned by the Blethen Family, endorsers of Republicans in a city that despises them.

Thanks for the link, I'd forgotten the $25/firearm tax. People are going to spend that much on gas trying to avoid it.

I'd hate to see Outdoor Emporium go.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. Gotcha.

Yeah, I work in the heart of Seattle, but live outside the city proper, so the tax doesn't impact me really at all.

Unless it goes statewide and also collected at FFL's for transfer from out-of-state online sales, it will continue to drive business out of the city. Shit, I know people that drive all the way to Oregon to buy 10-20 cartons of cigarettes at once. (Clearly they haven't done the math on vehicle maintenance and fuel.)

[Wounded Bear]

40. Yeah, Dori is always good for a RW rant...

it's why I don't listen to him, except for the Seahawks pre-game show. He's tolerable there because he manages to keep it non-political.

[Kingofalldems]

9. Oh my, gunners not liking this one.

[Man_Bear_Pig]

13. Do your victory dance now. SCOTUS ahead.

[Volaris]

15. Meh...you have a federal Right to POSSESS guns;

Whether or not you get to sell them (and ascension the relevant sales tax to the relavant State)...yeah i would bet that the Roberts Court would say 'up to the State', as a matter of what type of business can be located where. The Supreme Court isn't gonna concern itself if a strip club is located bear a residential area...my bet would be this particular Bench would apply the same kind of theroy, even if that prick Alito ALMOST convinces Roberts or Kennedy of the opposite heh.

[Man_Bear_Pig]

17. You seem to know your Feds.

So tell riddle me this:

If one side says "we aren't going to follow federal law anymore, we are legalizing weed in our state".

What is to stop this:

"We aren't going to follow federal law anymore, we are going to legalize assault weapons (assuming there was a federal one) in our state."

[Cryptoad]

24. Welcome to DU,,,,,Comrade!

[Man_Bear_Pig]

39. Thankyou!

You have such a warm welcoming for a new person!

[Alea]

44. It's ironic that you call people you don't agree with in this thread "comrade"

given that traditionally, communist, socialist, and nazis are the biggest gun control people in modern history.

[Volaris]

46. Well. That's a damn good analogy for starters.

For me it drives home the point that we all love us some States Rights when they get to work in our favor. I would posit the following:

If presented with the question should THC be outlawed at the Federal Level?

My bet would would be that the Roberts Court would say no, reschedule from schedule one to schedule two (and allow pharma companies to begin conducting research into marketable and FDA-approved products). As to the assault weapons, not sure what this Benches result would be (I would bet it would rest on the specifics of the case rather than a generality), but my opinion of John Roberts is that as a jurist he's a Court Historian first, a corporatist second, a Catholic third and a Republican LAST. Sometimes, that hierarchy is going to work in our political favor. Other times, not so much.

The defense of the ACA and his agreement with the DC handgun ban Majority opinion are both examples of this.
Roberts is a corporatist FIRST. If that benefits me, I'll take it.

Alito is just a prick, all day EVERY day.

[Man_Bear_Pig]

47. Just for the record...

...I think all drugs should be legalized, not just weed.

Short term: Lots of families broken up. People can use openly and people who never used, but now can. Houses broken apart, abandoned kids.

Long Term: Eventually people will find that middle ground we have with liquor. Most importantly, we can tax and make up the deficit.

[cstanleytech]

16. Communities and states are allowed some leeway when it comes to things like zoning laws

such as Georgia which makes it illegal to sell alcohol near a church or school so while I expect SCOTUS might throw out the whole no right to sell guns aspect they will probably uphold the right of the states to put some limits on where they can be sold provided it does not go overboard.

[TomSlick]

18. Concur

Whether or not there is a Constitutional right to sell firearms, municipalities can use reasonable zoning ordinances to restrict the location of all manner of lawful businesses.

[CCExile]

20. Would this mean that there is no

constitutional right to manufacture guns? Where does ammunition stand?

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Arms is inclusive of ammo.

Freedom of speech is inclusive of much more than making sound waves, to draw a parallel.


That's not to say the cities/states can't regulate how MUCH you have, and WHERE you keep it, as long as it doesn't amount to an outright ban. In Heller vs. DC, the requirement that guns be stored disassembled in a safe amounted to a ban, because you couldn't use the thing in need.

[Amishman]

21. This now conflicts with a prior ruling by the 7th circuit

I'd say there is a good chance this goes to the SCOTUS.

[Alea]

23. May not happen with this case

but dang the 9th circuit is just asking for SCOTUS to grab'm by the pussy

[Cryptoad]

27. to all the Comrades in this OP

welcome to DU!

[Alea]

35. So because you don't like, or can not grasp the fact that 25 to 30 percent of the party

are gun owners, you call us comrades?

I think you were looking in the mirror when you made that post.

[Cryptoad]

52. Just welcoming all those with less than 200 post

seems to be a lot in this OP. No need to be rude, Comrade

[Nevernose]

41. Whats next? Cant sell porn in daycare parking lots?

Newspapers will have to pay taxes? Churches will have to refrain from overt political speech? If I want to protest in a public place I will have to pay a fee and get a permit?

Tyranny! I won’t let ANY of those things come to pass, because clearly they are taking away my rights. All the rights. Not wanting gun stores next to schools is practically setting the Constitution on fire.

[hack89]

53. Can't have abortion clinics within the city limits?

surely there can't be a right to administer abortions?

[Man_Bear_Pig]

65. The SCOTUS is going to smack this down.

And I bet it will be more than a 5-4 vote along party lines.