Adam Richards; Second Amendment Foundation; Calguns Foundation, Inc.; Brett Stewart v. Ed Prieto; County of Yolo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADAM RICHARDS; SECOND
AMENDMENT FOUNDATION;
CALGUNS FOUNDATION, INC.;
BRETT STEWART,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
ED PRIETO; COUNTY OF YOLO,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-16255
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01235-MCE-
DAD
MEMORANDUM*
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
FILED
MAR 05 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

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.
1 Yolo County’s policy provides that “self protection and protection of
family (without credible threats of violence)” are “invalid reasons” for requesting a
permit.

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --