SCOTUS Review Sought In Challenge Of Alameda County Gun Store Ban

Justice Courts Lawsuits Supreme Court
SCOTUS Review Sought In Challenge Of Alameda County Gun Store Ban

BELLEVUE, WA –-(Ammoland.com)- Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a challenge of an Alameda County, California zoning ordinance that effectively bans gun stores have filed a writ of certiorari seeking review by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The lawsuit was against an Alameda County ordinance that prohibits gun stores from being located within 500 feet of a residential zone. Plaintiffs won before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but that was reversed following an en banc hearing before the full appeals court.

Now the case is being appealed to the high court.

Second Amendment Foundation is joined in the case by the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, the Calguns Foundation, Inc., and three businessmen, John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga and Gary Gamaza. They are represented by Virginia attorney Alan Gura and California attorney Don Kilmer.

“You simply cannot allow local governments to ignore the Second Amendment because they don’t like how the Supreme Court has ruled on the amendment twice in the past ten years,” noted Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “You shouldn’t be able to zone the Second Amendment out of the Bill of Rights.”

“Local neighbors who live eight lanes across an interstate and the anti-rights politicians that cater to them can’t redline gun stores and the right to buy arms out of existence,” noted Gene Hoffman, chairman of the Calguns Foundation. “Since this case was filed multiple local city and county governments have used unconstitutional zoning laws to stop new gun stores from opening and close down existing gun stores. If this was a book store or an abortion clinic, the Ninth Circuit would not have hesitated in striking this zoning regulation unanimously.”

“The Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment was not a second-class right, but lower courts are ignoring that and holding otherwise—and so far, they’ve been getting away with it. We hope this case gets individual liberty back on track,” added Brandon Combs, executive vice president of the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees.

Second Amendment Foundation

“The federal courts exist, in part, to protect fundamental rights that might not be popular in certain jurisdictions,” noted California attorney Don Kilmer, who represents the plaintiffs. “Today, in the Ninth Circuit, those are gun rights. Tomorrow, who knows? One question presented by this case is whether our rights are subject to only one Constitution, or do those rights change from state to state?”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

  • 8 thoughts on “SCOTUS Review Sought In Challenge Of Alameda County Gun Store Ban

    1. It’s commifornia, they can do as they see fit. Laws mean nothing to them and they just change the laws to suit their fancy. Of course the state is broke, education is the 48th in the country and the cities and towns look worse than any third world country. They have $hit all over the state so just let them have it and keep them out of the conservative states so they can’t breed and bring unlawfulness to the rest of the country.

      1. So quick to condemn but so slow to accept that there are a lot of us conservatives, independents, and even liberals in the 96% of the state that is rural who support the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. I’ve heard people from NY acknowledge that it’s the same between the rural areas of the state and the major cities, but I don’t see them being ridiculed by people who don’t actually live here and have no idea what we are up against. They have no idea how hard we fight even though we are out gunned by progressives in power. We stand like the people who died at the Alamo. We have little hope of winning under present political conditions, but we will never surrender.

    2. The supremes are deliberately not taking gun cases as they wait for President Trump to appoint another conservative to the court
      The way it is now it is uncertain how the ruling will go
      So we have to wait until the oldest and most liberal judges finally die and a new conservative appointee gives us a majority
      It will be soon
      Just wait a little while

      1. Any judge who sits the SCOTUS bench who publically expresses views which are anti-American with regard to the Founders and the Constitution do not belong on the bench which decides for all Americans what rights they may have and what rights may be limited.

        The words of the Founders which explain the meaning and intent of the words used in the 2nd Amendment still exist today, and therefore, there is no reason why any court today should be deciding what they meant or intended. That review was made when the Constitution was ratified after the authors appeared before the several state legislations and answered the questions asked. It was answered, too, when those, and the states which were added later, wrote individual state constitutions where they incorporated the words of the 2nd Amendment for the residents of their states.

    3. If the area is zoned commercial or business I don’t see how they can cherry pick what stores are denied or allowed as long as they are legal business.

      1. Precedent was established when they were able to control the locations of porn shops and adult book stores, or how close drug sales may be carried out relative to school locations. I do not put gun shops and porn in the same category, and I object to gun shops being regulated out of town as San Francisco has successfully done. When I have to go elsewhere to buy a gun or ammo, my right is being infringed. I’m just pointing out that if they can limit one thing, they can limit anything.

        This is true of guns. If they can limit the 2nd Amendment, they can limit any amendment; free speech, voting rights, 5th Amendment, Equal Rights, etc.

        They have already proven they can limit other rights. For example, a Muslim cab driver in Minnesota can reject a fare based on the driver’s religious beliefs; such as rejecting a blind person who has a seeing eye dog, or rejecting anyone in possession of or who has consumed alcohol. Yet, a Christian can not refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple.

    Leave a Comment 8 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *