|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 26, 2012, 10:41 PM | #1 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Teixeira v. County of Alameda
A new case has been filed: Teixeira et al v. County of Alameda et al
The plaintiffs are John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga, Gary Gamaza, Calguns Foundation (CGF), Inc., Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Inc. and the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (Cal-FFL). The defendants are the County of Alameda, the Alameda Board of Supervisors and 3 of the supervisors. The case was filed yesterday (June 25th) in the CA Northern District (San Francisco) and is case #4:12-cv-03288. Attorneys for the plaintiffs are Don Kilmer and Jason Davis. The SAF made the announcement, today. Quote:
I'll place this in the 2A Cases thread as soon as the complaint appears. |
|
June 27, 2012, 10:22 PM | #2 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The complaint has been posted. http://www.archive.org/download/gov....256462.1.0.pdf
There are 4 claims against Alameda County.
In short, the plaintiffs were told that the distance requirement (Alameda County Land Use Regulations - Conditional Uses -Firearms Sales. 17.54.131) was measured from the closest door of the subject property to the front door of the disqualifying property. The selected building has only one door - the front of the building facing the street. Plaintiffs were granted the variance (Resolution Z-11-70) on Dec. 14, 2011. Any appeals to this variance had until Dec. 26th to be filed. The San Lorenzo Village Home Association filed an appeal (with measurements from the back wall of the building) with the County Board of Supervisors on Dec. 29th. The plaintiffs were notified of this, by email, on Feb. 23rd. On Feb. 28, 2012, The Board voted to sustain the late filed appeal and overturned the decision of County Board of Zoning. |
June 27, 2012, 11:06 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
|
I like to see 14th Amendment arguments. They are powerful and the plaintiffs can use the very words and decisions of Uber Liberal Judges in the 9th Circuit to support a subject which the Judges are loath to support.
|
June 28, 2012, 11:51 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
I'll just interject a definitely inexpert observation here. When you get to zoning ordinance, variances, and appeals, layers of complexity increase. I hope one of the attorneys has a good grounding in zoning and property law.
|
June 30, 2012, 12:52 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
|
This being a SAF suit, and that the SAF is based in Bellevue, WA..they should know about the law suit about zoning fight with the Buddhist temple in Bellevue.
Basically, the outcome was that zoning could NOT be used to restrict a constitutional RIGHT (freedom of worship) |
June 30, 2012, 06:34 PM | #6 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
The summary of the claims in the complaint are (as stated above): Quote:
|
||
June 30, 2012, 11:58 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|