"Nordyke v. King is a case challenging an effective ban on gun shows on county property by the county of Alameda. While the case was originally about gun shows on county property, it's mainly interesting recently (Mar 2009) because it may be the first case to "incorporate" the Second Amendment against the states."
May 10, 2009, 11:15 AM
May 10, 2009, 12:15 PM
For those interested in catching up on what Nordyke means to gun rights, I DO NOT recommend the calguns site linked above. It has a lot of armchair commentary that is remarkably ignorant of the law and what the ruling really means. The THR thread is much leaner/cleaner and better:
Synopsis: The 9th circuit court of appeals (governing all Pacific and many western states - in addition to AK/CA/HI it includes WA, OR, MT, ID, NV and AZ - or about 35% of the land mass of the US) ruled that it agreed that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated against the states - meaning it was a right that states, not just the federal government, could not violate. This made gun-fans very happy.
At the same time, they ruled that states and cities could discard the right if more than a few citizens were gathered together in public. Most folks ignored this aspect of the ruling during the rejoicing over the incorporation issue. Thus, unless you live in a state with a pre-emption law (banning gun laws other than at the state level of legistlation), any local administrator can discard your 2nd Amendment rights, D.C. v. Heller or not.
I am not trying to start another Nordyke thread - just recapping and directing folks to the main discussion above, which is a more thoughtful recap than the one previously linked in this thread.
May 10, 2009, 08:39 PM
Thanks for posting a better link - my response (as is obvious) was meant pretty much just a snarky response, with a tiny bit of helpful information as well. I probably shouldn't have done it, but court cases are almost always online somewhere, and it pays to do at least a quick search before posting.
All right, I'll try to stop being as snarky from now on. *SIGH* :o
May 10, 2009, 09:08 PM
Remember, "carry for self-defense" wasn't an element of Nordyke at all, it was solely about the ability to hold a commercial function, involving guns, on county property. To look for the ruling on this limited a case to do more than incorporate was hoping for a lot. Even Heller only focussed on possession and carry in the home.
The sensitive places portion of the ruling was left formally undefined, just vague verbiage about "large numbers of people maybe being an okay reason", as opposed to a hard test or standard being created.
So, that portion of the ruling wasn't "ignored" by most of us, it was simply recognized as requiring further court action to define what "sensitive places" were.
I believe the panel erred in that particular part of the ruling but, since they went far beyond Scalia's language in the Heller ruling on "sensitive places" I can see that being easily challenged with a later suit.
I guess my point is, it was huge win as it sets up a Circuit controversy on incorporation for SCOTUS to deal with sooner rather than later. It also provided the basis for SAF and the others to immediately file their planned suits against "may-issue" AND the handgun safety list. I'm betting an AWB case will be filed shortly as well (if it hasn't).
None of that would have happened without Nordyke. Once SAF wins the "may issue" case, that will provide the basis for defining "reasonable restrictions" on where that "shall-issue" carry can occur. That is, if SCOTUS doesn't do it first.
There isn't a "downside" to the ruling, as no one should have expected to get everything cleared up by that case, given the limited circumstance it actually addressed.
May 11, 2009, 01:05 AM
There is nothing on Calguns.net about an appeal. Until I see it there I doubt the validity of any such statement.
If you enjoyed reading about "Nordyke to appeal to SCOTUS" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!