## Facts

- Alameda County adopted a zoning ordinance prohibiting gun stores within 500 feet of any residential district, school, other gun store, or liquor-selling establishment.
- Three individual plaintiffs formed a partnership to open a gun store at a building in unincorporated Alameda County; organizational plaintiffs were firearms-rights associations.
- Plaintiffs contended the building’s front door was more than 500 feet from the nearest house’s front door, though part of the building was within 500 feet of that house.
- A county zoning body concluded the site violated the 500-foot requirement but granted a variance.
- Nearby residents appealed to the County Board of Supervisors, which reversed, denied the variance, and refused to issue the conditional use permit.
- Plaintiffs sued, asserting facial and as-applied claims under the Second Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.
- The case was decided at the pleadings stage on the County’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

## Issues

1. Whether a 500-foot zoning setback restricting where gun stores may operate violates the Second Amendment rights of prospective firearms retailers and their potential customers.
2. Whether imposing the setback requirement on gun stores, but not other retailers, violates the Equal Protection Clause.

## Decision

- The court granted the County’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- The court held the ordinance was a “presumptively lawful” regulation imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms and, on the pleadings, did not violate the Second Amendment.
- The court held the equal protection claim failed because the County had a rational basis to regulate gun stores differently from other retailers.

## Legal Principles

- Regulations imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are presumptively lawful under Supreme Court Second Amendment precedent.
- At the motion-to-dismiss stage, plaintiffs must plead nonconclusory facts showing that a challenged regulation burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment in a way that plausibly infringes the right.
- Allegations that a particular retail location is “essential” to Second Amendment exercise must be supported by specific facts, including facts plausibly showing meaningful impairment of practical access to firearms.
- Zoning classifications affecting gun stores, absent a suspect classification or fundamental right triggered on the pleaded facts, are reviewed under rational-basis equal protection review; the government need only have a conceivable legitimate public-safety justification.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the complaint because the 500-foot setback was treated as a presumptively lawful condition on commercial firearms sales and the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that the ordinance meaningfully prevented access to firearms; the equal protection claim also failed under rational-basis review given legitimate public-safety reasons for distinct zoning treatment of gun stores.


Teixeira v. County of Alameda, No. 12-cv-03288, 2013 WL 707043 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2013)