Ninth Circuit: Right to Bear Arms Includes Right to Acquire Arms

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Monday that the right to bear arms has historically included the right to acquire them,
and remanded the case of Teixeira v. County of Alameda, CA to the lower court.

Teixeira revolves around Alameda County, CA zoning rules for incorporated areas that not only require a gun store owner to obtain requisite local, state, and federal permits for the business, but also make sure “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.'”

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/05/16/ninth-circuit-right-bear-arms-includes-right-acquire-arms/

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/05/16/13-17132.pdf

No more FFLs need ya think?

Breitbart article said:

Writing in the Majority Opinion, 9th Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain emphasized, “...The historical record indicates that Americans continued to believe that such right included the freedom to purchase and to sell weapons. In 1793, Thomas Jefferson noted that “[o]ur citizens have always been free to make, vend, and export arms. It is the constant occupation and livelihood of some of them.”

Click to expand...

Could this set a precedent to repealing parts of ITAR?

https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar.html

Immunity from the commerce clause.

If the Second Amendment was given immunity from the Commerce Clause via "shall not be infringed", then most all of your federal gun laws would have to be abolished as they are (would be ruled as) un-constitutional.

Decision heading in the right direction and a bit surprising from the 9th Circuit.

Unfortunately, for liberal judges which from all accounts are the majority, strict scrutiny means scrutinizing the law abiding citizen rather than the gov't's staying without the bounds of its constitutional limits. Well, unless it is about a made up right "found" in the constitution rather than one of the enumerated rights.