Richard Enos v. Eric Holder, Jr.

MEMORANDUM

Appellants jointly appeal the district court’s decision to dismiss their request for injunctive and declaratory relief from the firearm prohibition imposed by 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(9) (“Lautenberg Amendment”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Reviewing de novo the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss, see Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005), we affirm.

The Lautenberg Amendment does not violate Appellants’ Second Amendment rights. Under Chavan (decided after District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 , 128 S.Ct. 2783 , 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008)), the Lautenberg Amendment is constitutional on its face, because the statute is substantially related to the important government purpose of reducing domestic gun violence. United States v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127, 1139-41 (9th Cir.2013). Additionally, there is no evidence in this record demonstrating the statute is unconstitutional as applied to the Appellants. Fur ther, when questioned, counsel for Appellants declined to suggest such evidence exists. Therefore, the district court correctly held that amendment of the complaint would be futile. See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,…