Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 13-17132
IN THE
Robert M. Loeb
Thomas M. Bondy
ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
SUTCLIFFE LLP
1152 15th Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 339-8400
Naomi J. Mower
ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
SUTCLIFFE LLP
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Brian P. Goldman
ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
SUTCLIFFE LLP
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................... ii
INTRODUCTION AND RULE 35 STATEMENT .................................... 1
STATEMENT............................................................................................. 3
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ....................................... 6
I.
II.
III.
IV.
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 23
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
ADDENDUM A
Panel Slip Opinion, dated May 16, 2016
ADDENDUM B
California City and County Ordinances Regulating the
Location of Firearms Sales in Relation to Residential
Areas
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Bauer v. Harris,
94 F. Supp. 3d 1149 (E.D. Cal. 2015) .................................................. 22
Bonidy v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
790 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 7
Caetano v. Massachusetts,
136 S. Ct. 1027 (2016) .......................................................................... 18
Cheatham v. Shearon,
31 Tenn. 213 (1851).............................................................................. 20
District of Columbia v. Heller,
554 U.S. 570 (2008) .................................................... 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 18
Ezell v. City of Chicago,
651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) ................................................................ 15
Illinois Assn of Firearms Retailers v. City of Chicago,
961 F. Supp. 2d 928 (N.D. Ill. 2014) ...................................................... 9
Jackson v. City & Cty. of San Francisco,
746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014) ........................................ 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14
Mathis v. United States,
136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) ............................................................................ 8
McDonald v. City of Chicago,
561 U.S. 742 (2010) ............................................................................ 1, 6
Natl Rifle Assn of Am., Inc. v. ATF,
700 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2012) ................................................................ 17
NLRB v. Noel Canning,
134 S. Ct. 2550 (2014) .......................................................................... 17
ii
Nordyke v. King,
644 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................. 7
Nordyke v. King,
681 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................... 7, 13, 22
Pena v. Lindley,
No. 2:09-CV-01185-KJM, 2015 WL 854684
(E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2015) ...................................................................... 22
Peruta v. County of San Diego,
___ F.3d ____, Nos. 10-56971, 11-16255, 2016 WL 3194315
(9th Cir. June 9, 2016) ................................................................... 14, 22
Petramala v. U.S. Dept of Justice,
481 F. Appx 395 (9th Cir. 2012) ......................................................... 13
The Pocket Veto Case,
279 U.S. 655 (1929) .............................................................................. 17
Simpson v. Justice,
43 N.C. 115 (1851)................................................................................ 20
Sundowner Assn v. Wood Cty. Commn,
No. 2:14-CV-00193, 2014 WL 3962495
(S.D. W. Va. Aug. 13, 2014) ................................................................. 15
United States v. Barton,
633 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2011) ............................................................. 9, 10
United States v. Castro,
No. 10-50160, 2011 WL 6157466 (9th Cir. Nov. 28, 2011) ................. 13
United States v. Chafin,
423 F. Appx 342 (4th Cir. 2011) ..................................................... 2, 15
United States v. Chovan,
735 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) .......................................................... 9, 14
United States v. Conrad,
923 F. Supp. 2d 843 (W.D. Va. 2013) .................................................. 15
iii
Ordinances
Alameda Cty., Cal., Code 17.54.130 ...................................................... 20
Alameda Cty., Cal., Code 17.54.131 ............................................ 3, 16, 20
Other Authorities
Saul Cornell & Nathan DeDino, A Well Regulated Right: The
Early American Origins of Gun Control, 73 Fordham L.
Rev. 487 (2004) ..................................................................................... 21
GAO Letter Report, Federal Firearms Licensees: Various
Factors Have Contributed to the Decline in the Number of
Dealers, GAO/GGD-96-78 (Mar. 29, 1996), available at
https://goo.gl/JqETyh ........................................................................... 19
Carlton F.W. Larson, Four Exceptions in Search of A Theory:
District of Columbia v. Heller and Judicial Ipse Dixit, 60
Hastings L.J. 1371 (2009) .................................................................... 17
Robert H. Nelson, Zoning and Property Rights: An Analysis
of the American System of Land Use Regulation (1977) .................... 20
Adam Winkler, Scrutinizing the Second Amendment, 105
Mich. L. Rev. 683 (2007) ........................................................................ 7
STATEMENT
In 1998, Alameda County enacted a zoning ordinance requiring
that any new gun store be located at least 500 feet from schools, day
care centers, other gun stores, stores selling or serving liquor, and
residentially zoned districts. Alameda Cty., Cal., Code 17.54.131. As
of 2011, ten gun stores operated within the County, four of which are in
the unincorporated areas of the County governed by the ordinance.
Excerpts of Record (ER) 121, 179.
In 2010, Appellants Teixeira, Nobriga, and Gamaza formed
Valley Guns and Ammo, a partnership seeking to open a new gun
store in the County. ER 37. Valley Guns selected a property in
unincorporated San Leandro and applied for a permit. ER 40. The
zoning board found that the proposed property did not comply with the
ordinance because it was within 500 feet of two residentially zoned
neighborhoods. ER 45, 64, 68, 178. The zoning board nevertheless
granted a variance and issued the permit. ER 48, 179-83. A
homeowners association appealed the matter to the Alameda County
Board of Supervisors, which rejected the zoning boards decision and
denied the permit. ER 48-49.
3
14
15
16
are protected because the Second Amendment extends ... to ... arms ...
that were not in existence at the time of the founding. Caetano v.
Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1028 (2016) (per curiam) (quoting
Heller, 554 U.S. at 582).
Here, the relevant history is substantial. Firearms dealers have
been closely regulated for over a century. In 1837, for example, Georgia
regulated pistol sales by limiting those that could be lawfully sold to
horsemans pistols. 1837 Ga. Laws 90, I. Tennessee and South
Carolina also regulated pistol sales. See 1879 Tenn. Pub. Acts 135, ch.
XCVI, 1 (limiting sale to army or navy pistols); 1901 S.C. Acts 748,
No. 435, 1 (barring sale of smaller pistols). Delaware began licensing
gun stores in 1911. 26 Del. Laws 28, ch. 15, 2 (1911). And shortly
after, Colorado, Oregon, and Missouri imposed recording and reporting
requirements on dealers and manufacturers. See 1911 Colo. Laws 408,
ch. 136, 3; 1913 Or. Laws 497, ch. 256, 1, 3; 1921 Mo. Laws 691, ch.
2, 1.
In 1927, Congress enacted the first federal regulation of gun
sellers. Nonmailable Firearms Act of 1927, Pub. L. No. 69-583, 1, 44
Stat. 1059 (1927). Then, in 1938, Congress created a licensing scheme
18
applicable to gun sellers. Federal Firearms Act of 1938, Pub. L. No. 75785, 2(a), 52 Stat. 1250 (1938). The law preserved state and local
regulation of gun sales. See 26 C.F.R. 315.7 (1939) (federal licenses
confer no right to conduct business contrary to State or other law).
Congress then expanded the federal licensing scheme for firearms
dealers in 1968. Gun Control Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-618, 82 Stat.
1213 (1968). The Act aimed to aid state and local law enforcement in
reducing violent crime by prohibiting anyone without a license from
selling firearms or ammunition. Id. 101, 922(a)(1).
Later, in 1994, Congress enacted the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act, which gave the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (ATF) the authority to condition the issuance
of federal licenses on an applicants certification that it complied with
state and local law. Pub. L. No. 103-322, 110302, 108 Stat. 1796
(1994) (codified at 18 U.S.C. 923(d)(1)(F)). Under this law, ATF issued
guidance instructing its field offices to disapprove license applications
when local zoning law so required.2
19
Tenn. 213, 214-15 (1851); see also Saul Cornell & Nathan DeDino, A
Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control, 73
Fordham L. Rev. 487, 511 (2004).
State regulation of firearms dealers predates the Reconstruction
as well; as noted above (at 18), Georgia regulated sales as early as 1837.
Against this backdrop, the ordinance fits comfortably within the
longstanding tradition of regulating the sale of firearms, including with
respect to location.
IV.
barriers for localities that seek to ensure the safety of commerce in guns
consistent with local needs.
Second Amendment challenges to the regulation of gun sales recur
frequently in this Court. In addition to Nordyke, Castro, and this case,
appeals over California restrictions on firearms dealers are pending and
will be affected by the panel opinion here. See Bauer v. Harris, 94 F.
Supp. 3d 1149, 1155 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (holding a fee imposed on dealers
for gun sales falls outside the Second Amendments scope), appeal filed,
No. 15-15428; Pena v. Lindley, No. 2:09-CV-01185-KJM, 2015 WL
854684, at *13 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2015) (statute prohibiting sale of
certain handguns was one of the presumptively lawful regulatory
measures identified in Heller and, as such, falls outside the historical
scope of the Second Amendment) (internal quotation marks omitted),
appeal filed, No. 15-15449.
This Court has previously granted rehearing en banc where
divided panel opinions in this new area of constitutional law posed
serious threats to the reasonable regulation of deadly weapons. See
Nordyke, 681 F.3d 1041; Peruta, 2016 WL 3194315. En banc review is
similarly warranted here.
22
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant the Countys
petition for rehearing en banc.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Robert M. Loeb
Robert M. Loeb
Donna R. Ziegler
Thomas M. Bondy
Scott J. Feudale
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL, ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
ALAMEDA COUNTY
SUTCLIFFE LLP
1221 Oak Street, Suite 450
1152 15th Street NW
Oakland, CA 94612
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 339-8400
Naomi J. Mower
ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
SUTCLIFFE LLP
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Brian P. Goldman
ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
SUTCLIFFE LLP
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
23
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that pursuant to Circuit Rules 35-4 and 40-1, the
foregoing Appellees Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc is
proportionately spaced, has a typeface of 14 points or more and contains
4192 words.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
/s/ Robert M. Loeb
Robert M. Loeb
Counsel for Defendants-Appellees
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system on July 21, 2016.
I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF
users and that service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF
system.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
/s/ Robert M. Loeb
Robert M. Loeb
Counsel for Defendants-Appellees
ADDENDUM A
Panel Slip Opinion, Teixeira v. County of Alameda,
No. 13-17132 (9th Cir. May 16, 2016)
FOR PUBLICATION
No. 13-17132
D.C. No.
3:12-cv-03288-WHO
OPINION
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.
OPINION
OSCANNLAIN, 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
The Eden Area General Plan deals largely with aesthetics and has a
stated goal of [e]stablish[ing] a clearly defined urban form and structure
to the Eden Area in order to enhance the areas identity and livability.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
As Teixeira observes, his future customers necessarily would be lawabiding because state and federal laws require that gun retailers perform
background checks to confirm that customers are not criminals.
Furthermore, as Teixeira argued in his First Amended Complaint, current
law requires that gun owners receive training and certifications, which his
business would provide.
26
27
28
Before the district court, the County argued that it was reasonable to
keep gun stores away from residentially-zoned districts simply because
gun stores are heavily regulated, their patrons are heavily regulated, their
owners are heavily regulated, and exactly the type of person should not be
in a gun store can be can be attracted to that area so there is secondary
effect. And it is public safety to keep them away from the (inaudible) but
it is a part of the burden of (inaudible). It is difficult to understand why
29
30
31
32
Certain facts alleged in the First Amended Complaint cast doubt on the
Countys contention that enforcement of the Ordinance was designed to
satisfy the objectives it articulated in court. According to the complaint,
the West County Board of Zoning Adjustments initially granted the
Conditional Use Permit and variance after a staff report reached, among
other findings, the conclusion that Valley Guns & Ammo would not
materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or
working in the vicinity. The variance and permit were denied instead
because the San Lorenzo Village Homes Association, objecting to the
proposed business, filed an appeal challenging the Countys approval. In
the First Amendment context, we condemned a sensitive use veto in
Young v. City of Simi Valley, 216 F.3d 807, 814 & n.8 (9th Cir. 2000),
because of the potential for third parties to invoke it arbitrarily. Of course,
the residents who appealed the Zoning Boards approval may have done
so for valid reasons other than hostil[ity] to the civil rights of the
plaintiffs as guaranteed by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, as
Teixeira alleges.
33
34
35
36
ADDENDUM B
California City and County Ordinances Regulating the Location
of Firearms Sales in Relation to Residential Areas
Albany City Municipal Code 8-19.6(i)(2)
Cathedral City Municipal Code 5.32.040(A)
Contra Costa County Code 82-36.604(1)
El Cerrito City Municipal Code 6.70.100(A)
Hercules City Municipal Code 4-14.06(i)(2)
Los Angeles City Municipal Code 103.314(e)(3)
Los Angeles County Code of Ordinances 7.46.060(E)
Oakland City Code of Ordinances 5.26.070(I)(2)
Oakley City Municipal Code 5.11.022(a)
Palo Alto City Municipal Code 4.57.050(a)(9)(B)
Pinole City Municipal Code 17.63.140(A)
Salinas City Municipal Code 12A-6(i)(2)
San Bruno City Municipal Code 6.08.070(H)(2)
San Pablo City Municipal Code 9.10.140(A)
San Francisco Police Code 613.3(i)(1)
Santa Cruz County Code 5.62.080(C)
Santa Cruz City Municipal Code 9.26.080(a)