On June 23, 2016, the Richards and Peruta plaintiffs/appellants requested that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals re-hear their respective cases with a full en banc court rather than the limited en banc panel of eleven judges (ten plus Chief Judge Sidney Thomas) that recently overturned the original three-judge panel decision.
On June 24, 2016, the Chief Judge Sidney Thomas ordered that "Appellees [Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto and San Diego County Sheriff William Gore] and Intervenor [California Attorney General Kamala Harris] are directed to file responses to the petitions for full court rehearing en banc filed on June 23, 2016 by Appellants Peruta and Richards. The response to each petition shall not exceed 15 pages or 4,200 words, and shall be filed within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order. The parties shall the briefs electronically without submission of paper copies."
Richards' request for a full en banc rehearing can be viewed here.
Peruta's request for a full en banc rehearing can be viewed here.
The Court's order can be viewed here.

(San Francisco) – Three Second Amendment civil rights groups are hailing a new Second Amendment decision issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today. The opinion, issued this morning in the case of Teixeira, et al. v. County of Alameda, held that the Second Amendment right of gun purchasers extends to protect gun retailers from being shut out of an area.
Under the challenged Alameda County ordinance, a new gun store must be located at least 500 feet away from any residentially zoned district, elementary, middle or high school, pre-school or day care center, another firearms sales business, or places where liquor is sold or served.
But, according to a scientific study conducted by the plaintiffs that included a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) study of the entirety of Alameda County, there are no parcels within the county that meet the ordinance’s requirements.
That, plaintiffs argued, effectively constitutes a ban on the opening of gun stores and an infringement of Second Amendment rights.
“We’re very happy to see the Court take a very principled and reasoned approach to protecting the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms,” said Brandon Combs, executive director of The Calguns Foundation.
“Given California’s legal requirements to use licensed dealers for firearm transfers and background checks, it’s important that retailers are able to open their doors—and keep them open.”
Today’s decision was clear that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect second-class rights.
Writing for the majority, Judge O’Scannlain held that the “right of law-abiding citizens to keep and to bear arms is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees…”
“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. Indeed, where a right depends on subsidiary activity, it would make little sense if the right did not extend, at least partly, to such activity as well….Alameda County has offered nothing to undermine our conclusion that the right to purchase and to sell firearms is part and parcel of the historically recognized right to keep and to bear arms.”
In response to the decision, CAL-FFL President Michael Baryla noted that “the Second Amendment can only be exercised if law-abiding people are allowed access to firearms and ammunition. This win is one more reminder that access to firearms is, in fact, an integral part of the core right.”
Concluded Combs, “Today, the Court appropriately reminded the County that civil rights can’t be outlawed through piles of regulation. We look forward to securing Second Amendment rights through this case and many others to come.”
Plaintiffs on the case include three individuals who seek to open a new gun store in Alameda County. They were joined by gun rights groups The Calguns Foundation, California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, and the Second Amendment Foundation.

---

Help us fund this case!

Use the secure form below to help support Teixeira v. Alameda and many other pro-gun lawsuits:
[gravityform id="21" title="false" description="false" ajax="true"]

(San Francisco) – Three Second Amendment civil rights groups are hailing a new Second Amendment decision issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today. The opinion, issued this morning in the case of Teixeira, et al. v. County of Alameda, held that the Second Amendment right of gun purchasers extends to protect gun retailers from being shut out of an area.

Under the challenged Alameda County ordinance, a new gun store must be located at least 500 feet away from any residentially zoned district, elementary, middle or high school, pre-school or day care center, another firearms sales business, or places where liquor is sold or served.

Earlier today, Calguns Foundation attorneys presented arguments on two important civil rights before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Both cases have been brought against A.G. Kamala Harris and the State of California.
Tracy Rifle and Pistol v. Harris challenges California's ban on some truthful, non misleading handgun-related speech by firearms dealers -- what we believe is a violation of First Amendment rights.
Silvester v. Harris is a Second Amendment challenge to California's 10-day waiting period. The District Court previously ruled in our favor following a 3-day bench trial.
If you missed the oral arguments live this morning, you can watch the video below:

These oral arguments represent only one stage in what could prove to be a lengthy and expensive legal battle.  We still need your support to ensure that these cases continue to receive the high quality attention they deserve until they are ultimately resolved. Please consider making a tax deductible donation  to support the ongoing efforts of The Calguns Foundation.
[gravityform id="20" title="false" description="false" ajax="true"]
 

Our attorneys will be arguing two important civil rights cases TOMORROW at 9 AM in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
The Court decided that the same panel (made up of Chief Judge Thomas and Circuit Judges Schroeder and Nguyen) would hear both cases on the same day -- one right after the other.
Silvester v. Harris is a Second Amendment challenge to California's 10-day waiting period. (The District Court previously ruled in our favor following a 3-day bench trial.)
Tracy Rifle and Pistol v. Harris challenges California's ban on some truthful, non misleading handgun-related speech by firearms dealers -- what we believe is a violation of First Amendment rights.
You can watch oral arguments for Silvester v. Harris and Tracy Rifle and  Pistol v. Harris, February 9th at the Ninth Circuit's YouTube Channel