As Al mentioned, this case was an Equal Protection case based on how concealed carry permits are issued (or not). Nevertheless, there was some discussion about the 2A as the "right" involved in an Equal Protection claim impacts the analysis of the claim. The district court made one rather startling statement (to me at least). It recognized that the panel's opinion in
Nordyke had been vacated by the 9th Circuit
en banc but stated:
Quote:
"Although the Nordyke panel decision is no longer binding
authority (in light of the en banc decision), the reasoning of the panel decision is still persuasive – i.e., that “heightened scrutiny does not apply unless a regulation substantially burdens the right to keep and to bear arms for self-defense.” Nordyke, 644 F.3d at 783.
|
Opinion at p. 9.
WHAT? You're citing an opinion that the rest of the circuit court bench has said is not good?
Nevertheless, the plaintiff has standing problems because there were only conclusory allegations made that others similarly situated were treated differently;
i.e., no specific facts were alleged.
In addition, the court said:
Quote:
|
Here, Mr. Scocca has failed to adequately state a claim of substantial burden of Second Amendment rights sufficient to trigger strict security under the equal protection clause. Nowhere in his complaint has he included any factual allegations explaining how his right to keep and bear arms was substantially burdened as a result of Defendants’ actions. Indeed, as Defendants argue, at best Mr. Scocca has simply alleged in his complaint that he would prefer to carry a concealed weapon in order to conduct his work more effectively.
|
Opinion at p. 11.
The dismissal on the federal claim was
without prejudice and the court has allowed 30 days to amend the complaint. The plaintiff also sought relief for a state claim and it was dismissed
with prejudice. Normally, a party cannot appeal a dismissal of part of a case until a judgment on the whole case is entered. Since leave to amend the federal claim was granted, I don't believe the case is yet appealable.