Further, the Ninth Circuit held, among other things, that the Second Amendment does not protect a person’s right to sell guns. In its opinion the Ninth Circuit ultimately held that Teixiera’s Second Amendment rights were not infringed. On review en banc, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court’s dismissal of all claims. The Ninth Circuit issued a three-judge panel opinion affirming the dismissal of the equal protection claim, but reversed the Second Amendment claim dismissal. Teixeira challenged the board’s revocation in federal court claiming violations of “due process, equal protection and Second Amendment” rights of him and “his prospective customers.” A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was granted in favor of Alameda County without prejudice on the original complaint and again denied but with prejudice on the amended complaint. Petitioners were unable to find another suitable property in the County of Alameda and could not open their full-service firearms store. Unfortunately, after the board granted Teixeira his permit, the San Lorenzo Village Homes Association challenged the ruling and the county revoked Teixeira’s permit.
The Zoning Board also determined that there was a public need for a licensed firearms retailer in the neighborhood. In granting Teixeira’s application, the Zoning Board concluded that a gun shop at the proposed location would not be detrimental to the public welfare and warranted a variance in light of the physical buffer created by a major highway between the proposed site and the nearest residential district. Teixeira was ultimately granted a variance from the Alameda County zoning ordinance and his application for a Conditional Use Permit for his firearms store was approved. Petitioners challenged the county zoning ordinance as a violation of their Second Amendment rights. Petitioners, John Teixeria, Steve Nobriga, and Gary Gamaza (collectively “Teixeira” or “Petitioners”) sought to open a firearms store that was four-hundred fifty feet from the nearest residential property. In Teixeira, an Alameda County ordinance required any business selling firearms to be at least five-hundred feet from: schools, day cares, any business selling liquor, other gun stores, and residential districts. This question was most recently addressed in Teixeira v. The question still remains as to what level of constitutional scrutiny is appropriate when a person’s right to sell, rather than bear, arms is limited. In Heller, the Court also refused to apply rational basis review to challenges of laws that impact a person’s enumerated rights such as the guarantee against double jeopardy, right to counsel and right to bear arms. Heller, the Supreme Court upheld a person’s individual right to bear arms for lawful purposes. Others believe there should be some limitations on the right to “keep and bear arms.” In District of Columbia v. Proponents of the Second Amendment stand firm in their belief that there should be little to no restrictions on a person’s ability to obtain and maintain ownership of a gun. Additionally, incidences of gun violence increase and guns negatively affect more people every year. Whether it’s news of another fatal shooting spree or a new law being passed, guns and people’s rights under the Second Amendment are being talked about on a near daily basis.
Lately it seems every other day we get a notification of something gun related.
Las Vegas, Parkland, Santa Fe, these three places and many more bring up a variety of emotions in people because of the tragic mass shooting events that have occurred over the last year.
0 kommentar(er)
