Does the first amended complaint allege a burden on prospective customers' rights?

Here, when read in the light most favorable to Appellants,¹ the first amended complaint does allege a burden on their prospective customers' Second Amendment rights:² It alleges a burden on the ability of those prospective customers to obtain training, repairs, and other gun-related services at the same location at which they buy their firearms. Teixeira v. County of Alameda , 822 F.3d 1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2016) ; see also Ezell v. City of Chicago , 651 F.3d 684, 69697 (7th Cir. 2011) (rejecting Chicago's argument that its ban on firearms ranges passed constitutional muster because residents could travel outside the city to satisfy their needs elsewhere, explaining that "[t]he pertinent question is

[873 F.3d 696]