McDougall v. County of Ventura, No. 20-56220 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Under California law, citizens can only obtain firearms and ammunition in person at government-approved gun and ammunition shops. After purchasing a firearm, they must wait a minimum of 10 days to obtain it. Ventura County issued COVID-19 pandemic public health orders that mandated a 48-day closure of gun shops, ammunition shops, and firing ranges, while allowing other businesses like bike shops to remain open. The Orders also prohibited everyone from leaving their homes other than for preapproved reasons, which did not include traveling to gun or ammunition shops or firing ranges outside Ventura County.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a challenge to the Orders. The Orders “burdened conduct protected by the Second Amendment, based on a historical understanding of the scope of the Second Amendment right” and failed to satisfy any level of heightened scrutiny. They were not the least restrictive means to further the governmental interest, especially when compared to businesses that had no bearing on fundamental rights, yet were allowed to remain open. The County failed to provide any explanation suggesting that gun shops, ammunition shops, and firing ranges posed a greater risk of spreading COVID-19 than other businesses and activities nor any evidence that it considered less restrictive alternatives. The Orders imposed a far greater burden than California’s 10-day waiting period.
Court Description: Second Amendment. The panel reversed the district court’s order dismissing, for failure to state a claim, an action alleging that Ventura County’s COVID-19 public health orders mandating a 48- day closure of gun shops, ammunition shops, and firing ranges violated plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights. The panel first held that the Orders’ 48-day closure of gun shops, ammunition shops, and firing ranges burdened conduct protected by the Second Amendment, based on a historical understanding of the scope of the Second Amendment right. In assessing the appropriate level of scrutiny, the panel held that the district court erred by determining that Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), applied to Appellees’ Second Amendment claim. The panel held that Jacobson, which addressed a substantive due process challenge to a state statute requiring smallpox vaccinations, did not apply here because Jacobson did not concern the specific, constitutionally enumerated right at issue, and essentially applied rational basis review. The panel declined to determine whether the Orders were categorically MCDOUGALL V. COUNTY OF VENTURA 3 unconstitutional and instead, because the Orders failed to satisfy any level of heightened scrutiny, based its decision on the traditional tiered scrutiny analysis. The panel held that the Orders’ burden on the core of the Second Amendment warranted strict scrutiny—which the Orders failed to satisfy because they were not the least restrictive means to further Appellees’ interest, especially when compared to businesses that had no bearing on fundamental rights, yet nevertheless were allowed to remain open. The panel distinguished this case from Silvester v. Harris, 843 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 2016), which applied intermediate scrutiny in assessing California’s 10-day waiting period between purchase and possession of a firearm. The panel held that the Orders at issue here imposed a far greater burden than the 10-day delay at issue in Silvester. The panel held that the Orders also failed intermediate scrutiny given that the County failed to provide any evidence or explanation suggesting that gun shops, ammunition shops, and firing ranges posed a greater risk of spreading COVID- 19 than other businesses and activities deemed “essential.” Nor did Appellees provide any evidence that they considered less restrictive alternatives for the general public. This could not survive any type of heightened scrutiny where the government bears some burden.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on March 8, 2022.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 29, 2022.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.