cuchulainn
Member
http://www.abgnews.com/law/0227guns.shtml
from the Arizona Republic
from the Arizona Republic
No right to carry guns into public buildings
By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Feb. 27, 2003
In a major victory for cities and counties, a federal appeals court has ruled that people have no absolute right to carry weapons into public buildings.
A California man had argued that his constitutional rights of free expression and bearing arms were violated when Alameda County enacted an ordinance banning guns at county fairgrounds, which ended gun shows there.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not agree with him.
The judges unanimously said guns are not the same as speech.
The ruling could have implications in Arizona, where several communities have enacted restrictions on gun possession on city property.
And Tucson is battling to keep its restrictions on those who sell weapons at gun shows in the city-owned convention center.
But state Rep. Randy Graf, R-Green Valley, said he doesn't put much stock in the decision.
"Isn't this the same court that ruled you can't have 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance?" he asked, referring to a controversial ruling last year.
Anyway, Graf said he believes that the right to conduct gun shows in public buildings is probably protected by broader language of the Arizona Constitution, which says "the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired."
Russell and Sallie Nordyke, who have operated gun shows at the Alameda County fairgrounds since 1991, challenged the 1999 county ordinance, which shut down the shows. The 9th Circuit, relying on a ruling by the California Supreme Court, concluded that the county ordinance was not overruled by a state pre-emption on local gun laws.
The Nordykes also argued that they had a First Amendment right to hold the shows, saying that possession of guns amounted to free speech. Appellate Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain rejected that comparison.
"A gun itself is not speech," the judge wrote for the three-judge panel.
What is speech is what someone does with a gun.
Someone protesting by burning a gun might have some rights, as might be someone waving a gun at an anti-gun control rally, O'Scannlain said.
But the simple possession of a gun, he said, is not expressive.
The court rejected arguments that gun possession is protected commercial speech.
The judges also rejected the contention that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to have guns. O'Scannlain said as far as the 9th Circuit is concerned, that is a "collective right for the states to maintain an armed militia and offers no protection for the individual's right to bear arms."
Graf said the 9th Circuit has its rulings overturned more often than any other federal appellate court. And, in fact, O'Scannlain acknowledged that the 5th Circuit has ruled the Second Amendment does protect individual rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to decide which court is right.
Copyright, The Arizona Republic
