Read it and weep guys.
The court just ruled against a litigant in Ventura County to try and strike the ban on gun stores during covid.
This is the first order that deals with a gun store closure since the rest of them have thrown in the towel.
https://www.scribd.com/document/454...l-v-County-of-Ventura-Gun-Store-Ban-Tro-Order
Here, Plaintiff argues strict scrutiny applies because his rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution have been violated as a result of the County Order because he has not been provided information concerning his background check or commencement of the 10-day waiting period to retrieve his firearm and cannot travel outside Ventura County to purchase a firearm or ammunition elsewhere, thereby burdening his ability to acquire a handgun. Although the County Order may implicate the Second Amendment by impacting “the ability of law-abiding citizens to possess the ‘quintessential self-defense weapon’ – the handgun,” Fyock, 779 F.3d at 999 (quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 629 (2008), this Court finds that intermediate scrutiny is appropriate because the County Order “is simply not as sweeping as the complete handgun ban at issue in Heller.” Id. The County Order does not specifically target handgun ownership, does not prohibit the ownership of a handgun outright, and is temporary. Therefore, the burden of the County Order on the Second Amendment, if any, is not substantial, so intermediate scrutiny is appropriate. To survive intermediate scrutiny, the County Order must promote a “substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation.” Id. at 1000. Plaintiff does not dispute that mitigation of the spread of the COVID-19 virus is a compelling interest, but offers no evidence or argument disputing the County’s determination that its mitigation effort would be as effective without closure of non-essential businesses. Therefore, Plaintiff has not demonstrated he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.
The court just ruled against a litigant in Ventura County to try and strike the ban on gun stores during covid.
This is the first order that deals with a gun store closure since the rest of them have thrown in the towel.
https://www.scribd.com/document/454...l-v-County-of-Ventura-Gun-Store-Ban-Tro-Order
Here, Plaintiff argues strict scrutiny applies because his rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution have been violated as a result of the County Order because he has not been provided information concerning his background check or commencement of the 10-day waiting period to retrieve his firearm and cannot travel outside Ventura County to purchase a firearm or ammunition elsewhere, thereby burdening his ability to acquire a handgun. Although the County Order may implicate the Second Amendment by impacting “the ability of law-abiding citizens to possess the ‘quintessential self-defense weapon’ – the handgun,” Fyock, 779 F.3d at 999 (quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 629 (2008), this Court finds that intermediate scrutiny is appropriate because the County Order “is simply not as sweeping as the complete handgun ban at issue in Heller.” Id. The County Order does not specifically target handgun ownership, does not prohibit the ownership of a handgun outright, and is temporary. Therefore, the burden of the County Order on the Second Amendment, if any, is not substantial, so intermediate scrutiny is appropriate. To survive intermediate scrutiny, the County Order must promote a “substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation.” Id. at 1000. Plaintiff does not dispute that mitigation of the spread of the COVID-19 virus is a compelling interest, but offers no evidence or argument disputing the County’s determination that its mitigation effort would be as effective without closure of non-essential businesses. Therefore, Plaintiff has not demonstrated he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.
