Adam Richards v. Ed Prieto

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 05 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ADAM RICHARDS; SECOND No. 11-16255 AMENDMENT FOUNDATION; CALGUNS FOUNDATION, INC.; D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01235-MCE- BRETT STEWART, DAD Plaintiffs - Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. ED PRIETO; COUNTY OF YOLO, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Chief District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 6, 2012 San Francisco, California Before: O’SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiffs Adam Richards, Brett Stewart, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Calguns Foundation (collectively, “Richards”) brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Yolo County and its Sheriff, Ed Prieto (collectively, “Prieto”), alleging that the Yolo County policy for issuing concealed-carry permits violates the Second Amendment. Specifically, Richards argues that Yolo County’s policy, in light of the California regulatory regime as a whole, abridges the Second Amendment right to bear arms because its definition of “good cause”1 prevents a responsible, law-abiding citizen from carrying a handgun in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court concluded that Yolo County’s policy did not infringe Richard’s Second Amendment rights. It thus denied Richard’s motion for summary judgment and granted Prieto’s.

In light of our disposition of the same issue in Peruta v. County of San Diego, No. 10-56971, — F.3d — (Feb. 13, 2014), we conclude that the district court in this case erred in denying Richard’s motion for summary judgment because the Yolo County policy impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

FILED Richards v. Prieto, No. 11-16255 MAR 05 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK THOMAS, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment: U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

I agree that, if unaltered by an en banc panel or by the Supreme Court, Peruta v. County of San Diego, No. 10-56971,— F.3d—, 2014 WL 555862 (Feb.

13, 2014), requires reversing and remanding in this case. Peruta and this case were argued and submitted on the same date. Absent Peruta, I would hold that the Yolo County’s “good cause” requirement is constitutional because carrying concealed weapons in public is not conduct protected by the Second Amendment.

See United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673, 680 (4th Cir. 2010). I also would have held, in the alternative, that even if the good cause requirement implicated the Second Amendment, the policy survives intermediate scrutiny.

Therefore, I concur in the judgment.