9th circuit says, no right to open a gun store

[mountainmoma]

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

This article is from slate, so has an extremely biased slant on the issue. Better analysis should be added as it gets written, and found, by one of us.

For those of you who are not local, Big 5 is where you go to get your kid shoes for basketball, or some camping gear or workout wear, and not high end, at that. They do sell guns, they carry and sell a few long guns. Very few. No knowledge base or anything to advise buyers. Certainly no scary black rifles or handguns in their miniscule display.

The reason a gun store could not get a permit is that there literally is no spot that is zoned commercial that is not near a school, daycare, liquor store etc.... The plaintiff literally could not find a location at all. So, the rules are realy made to say "no gun stores allowed" . Just like the local city council meeting I went to last week. They are now ELATED. They can also now, in this county, make it so no gun stores can open ! BTW, when they say daycare, they also mean any home daycare of 4-6 kids. A gun store includes someone without a storefront that has a Firearms transfer permit. Daycare places are also common in commercial zones here. The city council meeting I was at last week in this county, everyone in the city (Mayor, councilmen, lawyer) acknowledged that there is no spot that is both zoned commercial and NOT close to one of the prohibited places, or the one existing gun store.

This is an issue as it is ILLEGAL in California to sell even a long gun person to person, it is also ILLEGAL to loan a gun to a friend, at all, without going thru a licensed gun store to make sure they pass a background check. It is also ILLEGAL to buy ammo except thru a licensed gun store that does background checks, starting soon.  So, not allowing gun stores thru zoning means that there is no way to own and use guns.

It is amazing that they would rule this way, given the "common sense gun laws" that exist here. It should be true that a gun owners rights are not violated by not allowing commercial gun stores. In most places in the country, that is true -- because ammo can be sold anywhere, because you can loan a friend your shotgun for the month for hunting, etc.... But, it is more than disengenuous for them to say it doesnt violate rights to keep and bear arms IN CALIFORNIA. Seems like they totally disregarded California laws requiring access to gun stores to keep and bear arms in this state. Kind of like the carry law, 9th circuit disregarded other rulings that have unequivocably found the right to carry, in some form, is a right, so that you have to allow either open carry, concealed carry ( or both) -- 9th circuit ignored that and said, well there is no specific right to concealed carry -- sure, but you also cant open carry ( even a long gun in unincorported areas s of our most recent restriction coming down the pipe...) at all.

[Smurf Hunter]

Some jurisdictions have similar restrictions on recreational marijuana shops, strip clubs, etc.  "Must be N yards from a school, daycare..."

I wonder if a first amendment violation came to the same court if the ruling would be upheld?

[mountainmoma]

Some jurisdictions have similar restrictions on recreational marijuana shops, strip clubs, etc.  "Must be N yards from a school, daycare..."

I wonder if a first amendment violation came to the same court if the ruling would be upheld?

One of many differences is that access to strip clubs is not a constitutional right. Neither is access to marijuana, although I would expect in the future that liquor stores could sell it, same as cigarettes or alcohol. This was all discussed at the city council meeting I attended by the city's lawyer, specifically why a gun store cannot be restricted in the same ways as a strip club or pot outlet, because of 2nd amendment. And then, how they can go about still effectively banning, without de facto banning.

This will go to the supreme court, if they will take it, as a violation of second amendment rights. SInce CA law makes everything 2nd amendment related go thru a gun store, there needs to be access to gun stores, or change the restrictive gun laws, cant have both.

[Smurf Hunter]

I wonder if there's an opportunity for tribal land.  At least up where I am, liquor, tobacco and fireworks are popular on indian reservations.  However legally since they are not taxed, you may not leave the reservation in possession.
It's one of those wink-wink type things.  But the point being that tribal land would be exempt from your city/county council rules.

[mountainmoma]

I wonder if there's an opportunity for tribal land.  At least up where I am, liquor, tobacco and fireworks are popular on indian reservations.  However legally since they are not taxed, you may not leave the reservation in possession.
It's one of those wink-wink type things.  But the point being that tribal land would be exempt from your city/county council rules.

possibly. That would be a many hours of driving from the major metropolitan areas.

[Smurf Hunter]

possibly. That would be a many hours of driving from the major metropolitan areas.

I guess that's a regional difference.  There are 3 major tribal developments within an hour from Seattle.
All have casinos, some have shopping malls and attract tourists hours away from Canada.

[Chemsoldier]

Hopefully it goes to the supreme court.  I have to think that the court that decided that DC and Chicago could not have a defacto ban on armed self-defense (DC's requirement that guns be stored inoperable) would not allow this to occur. 

[machinisttx]

IIRC, the 9th circuit is the most overturned. If it goes to SCOTUS, they'll probably overturn it.