John Teixeira v. County of Alameda
822 F.3d 1047
9th Cir.2016Background
- Three partners formed Valley Guns & Ammo to open a gun store in unincorporated Alameda County and obtained required state and federal licenses.
- Alameda County land-use code requires a Conditional Use Permit and a county firearms dealer license; it bars gun stores within 500 feet of certain disqualifying properties.
- County staff measured the 500-foot buffer from exterior wall to property line and concluded the proposed site violated the rule; the local zoning board granted a variance but the Board of Supervisors sustained an appeal and revoked the permit.
- Teixeira sued, alleging Equal Protection and Second Amendment violations (facial and as-applied); the district court dismissed the claims and Teixeira appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the Equal Protection claims but reversed dismissal of the Second Amendment claims, holding the commercial sale and related services (training, proficiency) implicate the Second Amendment and require heightened scrutiny.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alameda County’s 500-foot Conditional Use Permit (CUP) restriction violates Equal Protection | Teixeira: CUP singles out gun stores and effectively excludes them from unincorporated County, discriminating without justification | County: CUP is a neutral land‑use regulation applied equally; gun stores must meet same conditions as other businesses | Court: Affirmed dismissal — claim is essentially a Second Amendment claim; no suspect class and no cognizable class‑of‑one pleaded |
| Whether the Second Amendment protects the commercial sale/acquisition of firearms | Teixeira: Right to keep and bear arms includes right to acquire and to access vendors, plus related services (training, safety) | County: Heller classifies commercial-sale qualifications as presumptively lawful; zoning is a permissible condition on sales | Court: Sale and acquisition (and some related services) fall within scope of Second Amendment; historical and logical support for acquisition right |
| What level of scrutiny applies to regulations of commercial sale of firearms | Teixeira: If CUP functions as de facto ban, apply strict or very exacting scrutiny; if merely location regulation, intermediate scrutiny | County: CUP is a condition/qualification on commercial sales and thus presumptively lawful; at most rational‑basis review needed | Court: Regulations are not categorically exempt; County failed to show CUP is a longstanding, historically tolerated restriction — heightened scrutiny required; intermediate scrutiny appropriate if CUP only regulates location, but stricter review if it functions as a total ban |
| Whether the County met its burden to justify the CUP under heightened scrutiny | Teixeira: County offered only conclusory assertions that gun stores increase crime or harm neighborhood character; no evidence tying CUP to objectives | County: CUP protects public safety, prevents secondary effects, and preserves residential character | Held: Reversed dismissal — County failed to justify fit between CUP and asserted interests; district court applied insufficient scrutiny and must evaluate factual showing on remand (including whether CUP operates as de facto ban) |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (individual right to possess firearms for self-defense; lists presumptively lawful regulations including conditions on commercial sale)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporated Second Amendment against the states)
- Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014) (Second Amendment protects sale of ammunition; intermediate scrutiny framework)
- United States v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) (two-step test; government must show historical pedigree for presumptively lawful categories)
- Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) (range closures burden right to maintain proficiency; severe burdens may trigger more exacting scrutiny)
- United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (Second Amendment analysis and limits on categorical exemptions)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (rational‑basis test for non-suspect classifications; cited for Equal Protection framework)