Teixeira v. Alameda County

By David B. Kopel, Ilya Shapiro, Trevor Burrus, Clark Neily, Matthew Larosiere David B. Kopel, Ilya Shapiro, Trevor Burrus, Clark Neily, Matthew Larosiere

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed.” According to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, acquiring arms has
nothing to do with keeping and bearing them. This was the
court’s logic when it ruled in John Teixeira’s case
that buying and selling guns was beyond the scope of the Second
Amendment.

Teixeira sought to open “Valley Guns and Ammo” in
Alameda County, California (the East Bay, with Oakland as its
seat). The one problem with his plan was a county zoning ordinance
that forbids a firearms business from being “within five
hundred feet of a ‘[r]esidentially zoned district;
elementary, middle or high school; pre-school or day care center;
other firearms sales business; or liquor stores or establishments
in which liquor is served.’” That left virtually no place in
the county where a gun store could practicably be located.

After being denied the requisite permits due to complaints of
people who may or may not have been within 500 feet of his
business’s proposed location, it became apparent to Teixeira
that the zoning rule was, in effect, a ban on gun stores. He sued
the county and promptly …Read the Rest

Source:: Cato Institute