
    Ronald NORDSTROM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Geoff DEAN, Ventura County Sheriff, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-55901
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 23, 2017 
    
    Filed November 8, 2017
    Jonathan Birdt, Attorney, Law Office of Jonathan W. Birdt, Porter Ranch, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Marina Gatti Porche, Office of the County Counsel, Ventura, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ronald Nordstrom appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of his Second Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell, 845 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Nordstrom’s Second Amendment claim because “the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public.” Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 942 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     