Posted on 05/16/2016 4:33:54 PM PDT by jazusamo
Constitutional protections afforded by the Second Amendment include the right to buy and sell firearms, a federal appeals court ruled Monday in a decision that reinstates a lawsuit in which three California businessmen challenged zoning laws that limit where gun stores can be located.
In a 2-1 ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived Second Amendment challenges brought by businessmen who had sought to open a firearms store in Alameda County, but filed suit after they were denied a zoning permit based on laws that they claimed prevented them from opening a store anywhere in the county.
While Monday’s ruling declares that the right to buy and sell firearms is part and parcel of the historically recognized right to keep and to bear arms, it does not determine whether the zoning law is constitutional. Rather the majority opinion, authored by Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, indicates a higher level of scrutiny should have been used to assess the legality of the law and that the county government should have been required to present evidence justifying its restrictions.
“If ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ is to have any force, the people must have a right to acquire the very firearms they are entitled to keep and to bear,” Judge O'Scannlain wrote in the 34-page opinion for the majority. “One cannot truly enjoy a constitutionally protected right when the State is permitted to snuff out the means by which he exercises it; one cannot keep arms when the State prevents him from purchasing them.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
They’re up to something.
Wow!
The 9th Circuit? Really?
Ping!
Oh, it was only a 3 Judge panel. There will be a rehearing before the whole Court. That will end the ruling.
Broken clock and all that.
How is “zoning” constitutional anyways?
I know I read it somewhere but I always wondered why my land went from 1 Acre zoning to restrictive 5 acre zoning (1 home per 5 acres) which devalued my land values by 80 percent (but my assessment went up) go figure right?
Wonderful news.Today was a threefer!! First , the NYT Trump hit job blew up like an IED on THEM. Second. NO PENALTY FOR NOT PROVIDING ABORTION DRUGS for the Little Sisters!! and Finally this wonderful news that no zoning laws can stop the retail sale of our beloved guns!!! YESSSS
I had to read that twice and then check to make sure I knew which circuit was the 9th.
I would expect that it applies to individual persons as well as businesses and business persons, which should throw a monkey wrench into bans on private sales between law abiding citizens.
Absolutely, excellent point!
Cities around the country are sprinkling "mini parks" and "pocket parks" throughout their communities. The publicly stated intent is to provide conveniently located places for all of their citizens to recreate.
However the unstated real purpose is to make it impossible for sex offenders to live anywhere in the city limits because the parks are located such that there is no place in the city outside the legal distance for them to stay.
If there is a similar legal distance from parks, schools, etc. only beyond which you can run a gun shop, then these cities have also made it technically illegal to get into the gun business.
The path to hell rather than being paved, is now festooned with pocket parks.
Surprised this bit of logic made it out of the 9th Circuit.
Of course liberals don't want "the right of the people to keep and bears arms" to have any force.
Navy Patriot: I would expect that it applies to individual persons as well as businesses and business persons, which should throw a monkey wrench into bans on private sales between law abiding citizens.
Hm, given how the system works, this could be setting it up for the USSC to hear: they'll grant that there is such a right under the 2nd Amendment, then the city will appeal it to the USSC where the Justices will rule against the ruling stating that nothing in the Second 'immunizes' one from local laws.
Of course I may just be cynical/paranoid, but the USSC seems not to really mind the Constitution any more.
Bump!
“They’re up to something.”
Makes you nervous doesn’t it?
>>>>in the 34-page opinion for the majority<<<<
It takes 34 Pages to explain “Shall Not Be Infringed”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.