John Teixeira, et al. v. Alameda County, California, et al.

A zoning board issued petitioners a conditional use permit to open a full-service gun store, upon finding that the proposed store is “required by the public need” and would “not materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare.” Following anti-gun protests, the county’s board of supervisors revoked the permit without comment. The majority of a three-judge panel held that petitioners stated a claim for the violation of Second Amendment rights. An en banc panel majority disagreed. It held that petitioners could assert their customers’ right to acquire firearms, but had failed to state a claim for relief because the county had not “meaningfully constrained” that right in banning their store. The en banc majority also held that petitioners lack a Second Amendment right to sell arms. The courts of appeals are divided 8-2 as to whether Second Amendment claims are subject to a threshold substantial or meaningful burden test before the government must justify its conduct under heightened scrutiny. The questions presented are:

1. When Second Amendment claims are suitable for means-ends scrutiny, must courts apply some form of heightened scrutiny, or might rational-basis review suffice?

2. Does the Second Amendment secure a right to sell firearms?