Reso 23-07 PC Reso 0029 PC Reso Firearms And Ammunition Retail Establishments

Browse Search

ATTY/RESO.0029/PC RESO FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS REV: 05-08-23 SK Page 2 of 11 zoning district, schools, other firearms retailers, and liquor stores), explaining that the Second Amendment does not independently protect retailers’ rights to sell firearms and ammunition, and that the ordinance did not unconstitutionally infringe on prospective purchasers’ Second Amendment rights; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen (2022) 142 S.Ct. 2111 concerned individuals’ rights to possess or carry firearms in public, and held that New York’s very restrictive licensing requirements for carrying firearms in public violated individuals’ Second Amendment rights, but did not concern zoning regulations for retailer uses or retailer-license requirements; moreover, the concurring opinion noted that state and local governments may lawfully impose objective safety regulations regarding carrying and possessing firearms in public; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in City of L.A. v. Alameda Books (2002) 535 U.S. 425, 439-40, which concerned regulations that affected First Amendment rights to free speech, held that local governments enacting zoning laws must be given the chance to “experiment with solutions to admittedly serious problems,” even when constitutional rights are at issue; local governments considering an “innovative solution” to reduce crime and other secondary effects “may not have data” to directly prove “the efficacy of [their] proposal[s] because the solution would, by definition, not have been implemented previously”; and WHEREAS, the California Supreme Court has held, in California Building Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose (2015) 61 Cal.4th 435, that zoning regulations are presumptively constitutional; and WHEREAS, the International Association of Chiefs of Police recommends that local governments impose their own licensing requirements on firearms dealers because local requirements can respond to specific community concerns, and local review of licensees provides additional resources to identify and stop corrupt dealers;2 and WHEREAS, a 2009 study, Effects of State-Level Firearm Seller Accountability Policies on Firearms Trafficking, found that cities in states that comprehensively regulate retail firearms dealers and cities where these businesses undergo regular compliance inspections have significantly lower levels of gun trafficking than other cities;3 and WHEREAS, while California law requires a digital video surveillance system, no federal or California law imposes any other security requirements on firearms dealers 2 Interna�onal Associa�on of Chiefs of Police (IACP), Taking a Stand: Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities p. 14 (Sept. 2007), available at: htps://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/all/a/ACF1875.pdf, (last visited April 24, 2023). 3 Daniel W. Webster et al., Effects of State-Level Firearm Seller Accountability Policies on Firearms Trafficking, J. Urb. Health (July 2009), available at: htps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar�cles/PMC2704273/pdf/11524_2009_Ar�cle_9351.pdf (last visited April 24, 2023).