Wishful Thinking? ("Too Much Ordnance in One County"?)

Slate questions whether the Government can bypass the Second Amendment by abrogating the right of law-abiding vendors to sell firearms.

The cited 9th Circuit Court decision that a local ordinance which prohibits "too many gun stores in one municipal locality" (not a direct quote) is a legitimate restriction on the single product which is protected by the Constitution.

The question is whether the 2nd Amendment allows a 2nd gun store to establish itself in the same community where another gun store already exists.

California has decided that ... no, you cannot.

The 9th circuit court has decided that local zoning rules allow a municipality to limit the number of gun stores in a given area does not violate the Second Amendment: hey, you already have one gun store in this county ... we've done our part!

OPINION:

If these were two shoe stores opening in the same county, the local government would not impose an ordnance restricting freedom of trade; But because their product is firearms (protected by the 2nd Amendment, which shoes are not) the locals feel free to impose an ordnance proscribing "too many gun stores" in one county.

Whatever happened to Free Trade in America?  Oh, it's all politics.

9th Circuit rules there’s no Second Amendment right to sell firearms.:

Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right to sell firearms to the public? No, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday in Teixeira v. County of Alameda, a landmark decision affirming the government’s constitutional authority to strictly regulate gun shops. The 9–2 ruling is a victory for gun safety advocates who feared judicial aggrandizement of the right to bear arms could invalidate myriad laws governing firearm commerce. The decision may be imperiled, however, if the plaintiffs appeal to the Supreme Court, where conservative justices are increasingly eager to expand the scope of the Second Amendment.

So ... if the 2nd Amendment acknowledges our right to purchase firearms, can a local ordnance legitimately prevent us from choosing between twocompeting  purveyors of firearms?   Whatever happened to the American right to buy the best product at the best price?

Oh .. it's not constitutionally protected.  And besides, they don't like guns.

Okay, I get it.

Someone put a few dollars in their pocket.  It's all about graft, and not about freedom.

But ... oh hell, isn't their a law against bribery?   And aren't elected officials above all that?

Wishful Thinking!

NOTE: Just a casual set of meandering thoughts; it was NEVER my intention to suggest that local officials have been influenced in their decision!

Appeals Court Ruling:

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has taken a swipe at 2nd Amendment absolutists by ruling that, however one interprets the Constitution’s guarantee of a right to “keep and bear arms,” it doesn’t mean that gun shops have an absolute right to locate themselves anywhere they wish.

(You have a right too keep and bear arms, but that doesn't mean you have a right to BUY arms!)

PS: I hope that the local folks who have decided that the 2nd Amendment is not an imposition on firearms dealers don't think that I'm at all denigrating their high moral position.