Teixeira v. County of Alameda (CA)

Al Norris · Jun 27, 2012

A new case has been filed: Teixeira et al v. County of Alameda et al

The plaintiffs are John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga, Gary Gamaza, Calguns Foundation (CGF), Inc., Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Inc. and the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (Cal-FFL).

The defendants are the County of Alameda, the Alameda Board of Supervisors and 3 of the supervisors.

The case was filed Monday (June 25th) in the CA Northern District (San Francisco) and is case #4:12-cv-03288. Attorneys for the plaintiffs are Don Kilmer and Jason Davis.

The SAF made the announcement, yesterday.

SAF SUES ALAMEDA COUNTY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION IN GUN SHOP CASE
For Immediate Release: 6/26/2012

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal lawsuit against Alameda County, California and the county’s Board of Supervisors for violating the constitutional rights of three businessmen by wrongfully denying them permits to open a gun shop.

SAF is joined by the Calguns Foundation, California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees and businessmen John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga and Gary Gamaza. They are represented by attorneys Donald Kilmer of San Jose and Jason Davis of Rancho Santa Margarita.

“The facts in this case are outrageous,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “In the fall of 2010, Gamaza, Nobriga and Teixeira formed a business partnership with the intention of opening a gun store in Alameda County. When they began the process of getting permits to open their shop, they were advised of a requirement that gun stores not be located within 500 feet of any school, liquor store or residence.

“After carefully measuring distances between the shop’s front door and the front door of the nearest property,” he continued, “they found that they were well beyond the 500-foot limit. But then the county changed the measurement requirements.”

According to the lawsuit, the county next allowed an objection to be filed even though the deadline had passed for such objections, and even though the West County Board of Zoning Adjustments had voted to approve a conditional use permit and allow the gun store to operate.

“It is clear from the county Board of Supervisors’ behavior that they have gone out of their way to prevent three businessmen from opening a gun store in their jurisdiction,” Gottlieb stated. “This is a violation of their rights of equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and cannot be allowed to stand.”

“Social bigotry is bad enough when practiced by the media and the gun prohibition lobby,” Gottlieb concluded, “but when it becomes the official policy of an elected government panel, it then becomes necessary, if not imperative, for the courts to intervene.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

The Docket is here: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.256462/gov.uscourts.cand.256462.docket.html

The complaint is here: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.256462/gov.uscourts.cand.256462.1.0.pdf

There are 4 claims against Alameda County.

Plaintiffs were denied Due Process (14th amend) by the actions of the county by violating their own appellate deadline rules.
Plaintiffs were denied Equal Protection (14th amend) by the county accepting unreasonable measurements against similarly situated business who have been granted zoning variances.
A Facial Challenge to the requirement that gun stores must be located at least 500 feet away from residential properties as such a rule violates the 2A RKBA.
An As Applied Challenge to the same.

In short, the plaintiffs were told that the distance requirement (Alameda County Land Use Regulations - Conditional Uses -Firearms Sales. 17.54.131) was measured from the closest door of the subject property to the front door of the disqualifying property.

The selected building has only one door - the front of the building facing the street. Plaintiffs were granted the variance (Resolution Z-11-70) on Dec. 14, 2011. Any appeals to this variance had until Dec. 26th to be filed.

The San Lorenzo Village Home Association filed an appeal (with measurements from the back wall of the building) with the County Board of Supervisors on Dec. 29th.

The plaintiffs were notified of this, by email, on Feb. 23rd. On Feb. 28, 2012, The Board voted to sustain the late filed appeal and overturned the decision of County Board of Zoning.

Storm40 · Jun 28, 2012

isn't alameda county also where the nordyke's case was centered around? seems like a bad faith move by the county, if so... yes, i could have dibe a google or even a search on this board. no, i didn't.

EL1227 · Jun 28, 2012

“Social bigotry is bad enough when practiced by the media and the gun prohibition lobby,” Gottlieb concluded

'Social bigotry' ... I LIKE that term. Alan Gottlieb has a way with words and THAT one immediately puts the anti's on the defensive. If there is anything a progressive doesn't want to be called is a bigot.

Redd Byrd · Jun 28, 2012

California much like New Jersey is a great place to be from . . .

Al Norris · Jun 28, 2012

Storm40 said:
isn't alameda county also where the nordyke's case was centered around? seems like a bad faith move by the county, if so... yes, i could have dibe a google or even a search on this board. no, i didn't.

The name of Nordyke was Nordyke, et al v. King, et al. Alameda County was part of the "et al" nomenclature

It was and is a popular way of saying, Nordyke v. Alameda.

wolfwood · Dec 10, 2015

oral arguments were held
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0G8m6SpCYM

Master_P · Dec 10, 2015

Sounds promising. Judges O'Scannlain and Bea really ripped into to the county's attorney.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

motorcoachdoug · Dec 10, 2015

They really went after the county attorney.. Their might real hope here for the gun store.. Also I think the county did it out of spite as well. They are anti 2a and did not want the store their at all....At least that is my take on it.

pcfixer · Dec 12, 2015

“Social bigotry is bad enough when practiced by the media and the gun prohibition lobby,” Gottlieb concluded, “but when it becomes the official policy of an elected government panel, it then becomes necessary, if not imperative, for the courts to intervene.”

Unfortunately Woollard nor Kolbe will result in our freedom and liberty.

Dogabutila · Dec 12, 2015

I'm not seeing how the fact that convicts or proxies might go to a gun store to try to buy a gun puts a residential area anymore at risk than one in a non residential area.

I mean, it's like they are saying there are no convicts in residential areas, or firearms in residential areas. -.-

Brooklyn · Dec 12, 2015

Judges like due process. Even ones that hate 2a.

press1280 · Dec 13, 2015

Sounds like it'll be remanded though.

Rack&Roll · Dec 13, 2015

Who allowed "your day in court" to become 10 years in court? That's justice denied.

wolfwood · Jul 21, 2016

en banc petition filed

chilipeppermaniac · Jul 21, 2016

And to think if those business guys were from NY and wanted to deal heroin legally, they could likely get a license to do so.

http://medprecautions.org/new-york-becomes-first-state-to-legalize-heroin/

esqappellate · Jul 21, 2016

wolfwood said:
en banc petition filed

Ugh

wolfwood · Jul 21, 2016

esqappellate said:
Ugh

what odds do you give the petition

j_h_smith · Jul 22, 2016

wolfwood said:
what odds do you give the petition

Anywhere else, I'd say the plaintiffs would prevail. But in California, all bets are off.

My question is why doesn't 8 or more lanes of highway traffic and a 12 ft tall noise barrier wall disqualify this community from being an abuttor? I do not see where they have standing, due to their inability to access.

IANAL

HaveBlue · Jul 22, 2016

I liked how it was pointed out that gun sales could already occur legally anywhere in the state.

I seriously doubt that the HOA would prefer a long running series of 'impromptu, trunk to trunk private gun sales 'in' their neighborhood instead of the other side of the freeway. From what I heard in the video, that scenario would require the county to go make up another law. They could call it the "Flash Gun Fleamarket Safety Act" to make the jack boots seem less sparkly.

esqappellate · Jul 23, 2016

wolfwood said:
what odds do you give the petition

Not high. The alleged conflicts with Jackson and with the unpublished 4th Circuit decision don't cut it. No state wide interest. Suggestion of bad faith by the county. I doubt it gets a vote.

Teixeira v. County of Alameda (CA)

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Spud Head

Ultimate Member

R.I.P.

Active Member

Spud Head

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

I stand with John Locke.

Ultimate Member

R.I.P

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

HaveBlue

President, MSI

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics