Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Teixeira v. County of Alameda

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

May 16, 2016

JOHN TEIXEIRA; STEVE NOBRIGA; GARY GAMAZA; CALGUNS FOUNDATION, INC., (CGF); SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC., (SAF); CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES, (CAL-FFL), Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, as a policy making body; WILMA CHAN, in her official capacity; NATE MILEY, in his official capacity; KEITH CARSON, in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees

         Argued and Submitted: December 8, 2015, San Francisco, California.

          Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. D.C. No. 3:12-cv-03288-WHO. William Horsley Orrick III, District Judge, Presiding.

          SUMMARY[*]

         Civil Rights

         The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim, and remanded in an action brought by three individuals wishing to operate a gun shop in Alameda County, California, who challenged a County ordinance, which among other things, does not permit prospective gun stores to be located within 500 feet of a residentially zoned district.

         Affirming the dismissal of the Equal Protection claims, the panel determined that this was not a situation where one group was being denied a right while another similar group was not. The panel held that because the right to keep and to bear arms for self-defense is not only a fundamental right, but an enumerated one, it was more appropriately analyzed under the Second Amendment than the Equal Protection Clause. The panel further held that plaintiffs failed to plead a cognizable class-of-one claim because they had neglected to identify a similarly situated business.

         Reversing the dismissal of plaintiffs' Second Amendment claims, the panel held that the County had offered nothing to undermine the panel's 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. The panel held that the Ordinance burdened conduct protected by the Second Amendment and that it therefore must be subjected to heightened scrutiny--something beyond mere rational basis review.

         The panel held that under heightened scrutiny, the County bore the burden of justifying its action, and that the district court should have required the County to provide some evidentiary showing that gun stores increase crime around their locations or negatively impact the aesthetics of a neighborhood. The panel held that if on remand evidence did confirm that the Ordinance as applied, completely bans new guns stores (rather than merely regulating their location), something more exacting than intermediate scrutiny would be warranted.

         Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Silverman agreed that the equal protection claims were correctly dismissed, but dissented from the majority's opinion regarding the Second Amendment. In Judge Silverman's view this case was a mundane zoning dispute dressed up as a Second Amendment challenge and the district court correctly ruled that the ordinance restricting the location of a gun store is " quite literally a 'law[] imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.'"

         Donald E. J. Kilmer, Jr., San Jose, California, argued the cause and filed the briefs for the plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the opening brief was Charles W. Hokanson, Long Beach, California.

         Scott J. Feudale, County Counsel, Alameda County, California, argued the cause for the defendants-appellees. Donna R. Ziegler, County Counsel, and Mary Ellyn Gormley, Assistant County Counsel, filed the brief.

         Alan Gura, Gura & Possessky, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, filed a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in support of the plaintiffs-appellants. Imran A. Khaliq, Arent Fox LLP, filed a brief on behalf of amici curiae Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Youth Alive! in support of the defendants-appellees.

         Before: Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Barry G. Silverman, and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges. Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Silverman.

          OPINION

         O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:

         We must decide whether the right to keep and to bear arms, as recognized by the Second Amendment, necessarily includes the right of law-abiding Americans to purchase and to sell firearms. In other words, we must determine whether the Second Amendment places any limits on regulating the commercial sale of firearms.

         I

         A

         In the fall of 2010, John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga, and Gary Gamaza decided to open a retail business that would offer firearm training, provide gun-smith services, and sell firearms, ammunition, and gun-related equipment. The three formed a partnership named " Valley Guns & Ammo" and set to work on making their plan a reality. The trio conducted an extensive survey of Alameda County, California residents and discovered that existing retail establishments failed to satisfy customer demand. The men believed that Alameda County residents were in need of a more personal experience, and were likely to embrace a business that could provide a broader range of services not offered by existing sporting goods retailers. The City of San Leandro appeared to be the ideal location for their gun store.

         Teixeira had operated an Alameda County gun store previously and was thus well aware of the maze of federal, state, and local regulations that he and his partners would have to navigate before they could open shop. Teixeira and Nobriga qualified for federal firearm licenses; all three men were eligible for California licenses. All that remained was to ensure that Valley Guns & Ammo would be in compliance with the Alameda County code.

         In unincorporated Alameda County, two species of retailers must obtain " Conditional Use Permits" before they are authorized to conduct business: " superstore[s]" and " firearms sales business[es]." Alameda Cty., Cal., Code § § 17.54.130-132 (" the Ordinance" ). The County reviews applications to determine whether there is a " public need" for a proposed business, whether the business will " affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity," and whether the business would be detrimental to the public welfare or property. Id. § 17.54.130. The County will not issue a permit to a prospective gun retailer until the applicant proves, among other things, that it (1) possesses the requisite state and federal licenses, (2) will store firearms and ammunition lawfully, and (3) the proposed location of the business is not within five hundred feet of a " [r]esidentially zoned district; elementary, middle or high school; pre-school or day care center; other firearms sales business; or liquor stores or establishments in which liquor is served." Id. § § 17.54.130-131. Finally, firearms sellers must obtain a county firearms dealer license. Id. § 17.54.131.

         The Alameda County Planning Department informed Teixeira, Nobriga, and Gamaza (collectively " Teixeira" ) that the 500-foot zoning requirement was to be measured from the closest door of the proposed business location to the front door of any disqualifying property. Relying on such guidance, Teixeira settled on a suitable property on Lewelling Boulevard in San Leandro. The building he chose had only one door, which faced Lewelling Boulevard. Teixeira obtained a survey showing that the closest residential property (from door to door) was located 532 feet away, across Interstate 880 in San Lorenzo Village. The next closest disqualifying properties, similarly measured, were a residence located 534 feet away and another property located 560 feet away (the latter also on the far side of the Interstate). Teixeira met with the landlord of the chosen premises, agreed to a lease, and began conducting preparations to ensure that the property would comply with myriad state and federal regulations.

         The West County Board of Zoning Adjustment scheduled a hearing and the Planning Department issued a " Staff Report." Aside from raising concerns regarding compliance with the " Eden Area General Plan," [1] the report found that there was indeed a " public need" for Valley Guns & Ammo's services, that the proposed business would not affect adversely the health or safety of local residents, that it had obtained all required licenses, and that Teixeira had sufficient knowledge to operate a gun store. The report nevertheless concluded that a zoning variance would be required because the proposed site, contrary to the survey Teixeira had commissioned, was in fact within 500 feet of a residential property and therefore failed to qualify for a permit. The report explained that the County had chosen to measure from the closest building exterior wall of the proposed site to the closest residential property line rather than from door to door. As a result, it determined that the nearest residential property was only 446 feet away-54 feet too close under the 500-foot rule. The report recommended against approving a variance.

         Despite the report, at a public hearing on December 14, 2011, the West County Board of Zoning Adjustments voted to grant a variance and approved the issuance of a permit. Noting the violation of the 500-foot rule, the Board reasoned that the " situation [was] unique" and thus a variance was appropriate because Interstate 880, as well as other obstructions, prevented " direct traversable access at a distance less than 500 feet from the site to a residentially zoned district." The Board determined that Teixeira's proposal otherwise complied with the Conditional Use Permit requirements, and that it was not counter to the Eden Area General Plan. Teixeira was informed that the decision would be final unless an appeal were filed by December 26, 2011.

         The San Lorenzo Village Homes Association, some of whose members " are opposed to guns and their ready availability and therefore believe that gun shops should not be located within [their] community," challenged the Board's decision. On February 28, 2012, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted to sustain the appeal, thus revoking Teixeira's Conditional Use Permit and variance.

         B

         Teixeira challenged the County's decision in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, arguing that it violated his right to due process and denied him equal protection of the law, and that the Ordinance was impermissible under the Second Amendment both facially and as applied. In preparation for the suit, Teixeira commissioned a study, which determined that, as a result of the 500-foot rule, " there are no parcels in the unincorporated areas of Alameda County which would be available for firearm retail sales." He argued that the zoning ordinance " is not reasonably related to any possible public safety concerns" and effectively " red-lin[es] . . . gun stores out of existence."

         Alameda County moved to dismiss the claims and Teixeira moved for a preliminary injunction (Teixeira would later stipulate to the dismissal of his due process claim). The district court denied Teixeira's motion and dismissed the equal protection and Second Amendment claims with leave to amend. Teixeira filed an amended complaint that asserted four claims: (1) in singling out gun stores, the Ordinance, as applied, violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause; (2) the Ordinance was facially invalid under the Equal Protection Clause because it targeted guns stores but did not apply to other similarly situated businesses; (3) the Ordinance was facially invalid under the Second Amendment; and (4) the Ordinance, as applied, violated the Second Amendment. Teixeira sought declaratory and injunctive relief; damages including costs, expenses, and lost profits; and costs and attorney's fees. In response, the County moved to dismiss, arguing that the equal protection challenges failed to state sufficient facts to support a claim and that under the Second Amendment, regulations governing the sale of firearms are presumptively valid.

         The district court granted the County's motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Teixeira timely appealed.

         II

         Teixeira first renews his Equal Protection Clause claims. Because " most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons," we will uphold a legislative classification so long as it " neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class," and " bears a rational relation to some legitimate end." Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631, 116 S.Ct. 1620, 134 L.Ed.2d 855 (1996); see also Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 10, 112 S.Ct. 2326, 120 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992).

         A

         Because gun store owners have not been recognized as a " suspect class," see Olympic Arms v. Buckles, 301 F.3d 384, 388-89 (6th Cir. 2002), Teixeira instead asserts that he is " engaged in, or assisting others in exercising a core fundamental right" and that " the Government's actions infringe on" that right. Merely infringing on a fundamental right, however, does not implicate the Equal Protection Clause; to succeed, Teixeira must allege that he is being denied a fundamental right while others are permitted to exercise such right, and that there is no valid justification for the distinction. See Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942) (" When the law lays an unequal hand on those who have committed intrinsically the same quality of offense and sterilizes one and not the other, it has made as an invidious a discrimination as if it had selected a particular race or nationality for oppressive treatment." ); see also Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 15, 395 U.S. 621, 89 S.Ct. 1886, 23 L.Ed.2d 583 (1969); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969), overruled, in part, on other grounds by Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). Here, " other general retailers," whom Teixeira identifies as similarly situated businesses, are also forbidden from engaging in the commercial sale of firearms absent compliance with Alameda County Land Use Code § 17.54.131. This is not a situation where one group is being denied a right while another similar group is not. And because the right to keep and to bear arms for self-defense is not only a fundamental right, McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 766-78, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010), but an enumerated one, it is more appropriately analyzed under the Second Amendment than the Equal Protection Clause. Cf. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994) (" Where a particular Amendment 'provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection' against a particular sort of government behavior, 'that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of " substantive due process," must be the guide for analyzing these claims.'" (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989))). Because Teixeira's equal protection challenge is " no more than a [Second] Amendment claim dressed in equal protection clothing," it is " subsumed by, and coextensive with" the former, Orin v. Barclay, 272 F.3d 1207, 1213 n.3 (9th Cir. 2001), and therefore is not cognizable under the Equal Protection Clause.

         B

         Nor did Teixeira adequately plead a " class-of-one" Equal Protection Clause claim. A class-of-one claim is cognizable when a " plaintiff alleges that she has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment." Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564, 120 S.Ct. 1073, 145 L.Ed.2d 1060 (2000). But Teixeira himself acknowledges that gun stores are materially different from other retail businesses when he notes that " [b]usinesses offering gun smithing services and retail firearm sales are strictly licensed and regulated by state and federal law." In neglecting to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.