Imagine that you operate a lawful business, one that expressly deals with a right protected by the United States Constitution, and the mere act of moving your business creates nothing but chaos?
That's what happened with one gun store in Goleta, California.
The store in question wanted to move into a building that happens to be located next to a preschool. People lost their freaking minds over it. They tried to guilt trip him into finding a new location.
It didn't work, so they tried regulations.
In September, they issued a 45-day moratorium on new gun stores.
Now, they've extended it to a year from the date of the original moratorium.
It's called an emergency effort, but the problem with that is that there's no emergency. All that happened was a gun store sought to move from one location to another, which just happened to be next to a preschool, when there was nothing against the law about the move. Nor was there anything immoral or wrong about the move.
First, preschools aren't actually schools. They're glorified daycares that offer a little bit of teaching ostensibly to help a kid start kindergarten off on the right foot but don't really seem to do anything a parent couldn't or shouldn't do.
Second, gun stores aren't like, say, a liquor store. While both sell goods regulated by the ATF, that's where the similarities end. First, a liquor store doesn't require a background check before someone buys a bottle of vodka, and while they might not want you drinking it in the parking lot, I know that a lot of alcoholics do. That means the possibility for drunk drivers right next to a school or preschool.
Gun stores, on the other hand, don't really have that problem. The people who walk into a gun store and buy a gun are the people who can pass a background check, meaning the vast majority of them aren't criminals in any way, shape, or form beyond the odd speeding violation.
Honestly, I don't see how this moratorium can survive legal challenge if for no other reason than there's no actual emergency here. The problem, though, is that unless someone wants to open a gun store in Goleta and is denied due to the moratorium, no one has standing to sue to get the moratorium tossed. Since the city is so hostile toward gun stores, it doesn't make a lot of sense for anyone to try.
Of course, this is one of those cases where the Department of Justice might want to step in.
After all, the right to keep and bear arms implies the right to acquire arms. Since California has banned privately made firearms, that means people have no choice but to go to a gun store in order to acquire a firearm if they want to exercise that right. The moratorium prohibits new stores from opening, thus artificially creating disturbances in the market for residents of Goleta.
I don't know that the Second Amendment Division has the time for it, especially since it probably has bigger fish to fry, but it would be nice to see.