Nordyke vs. King: Bad decision?

[crebralfix]

I'm reading it again.

 

[Librarian]

Perhaps this will brighten the days of a few people:

Calguns Foundation Files Suit, April 30, 2009

SAF, CALGUNS FOUNDATION CHALLENGES CALIFORNIA HANDGUN BAN SCHEME

For Immediate Release: 4/30/2009

BELLEVUE, WA and REDWOOD CITY, CA – The Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation and four California residents today filed a lawsuit challenging a California state law and regulatory scheme that arbitrarily bans handguns based on a roster of “certified” handguns approved by the State. This case parallels a similar case filed in Washington, DC, Hanson v. District of Columbia.

California uses this list despite a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last summer that protects handguns that ordinary people traditionally use for self-defense, and a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments. The California scheme will eventually ban the purchase of almost all new handguns.

Attorney Alan Gura, representing the plaintiffs in this case, noted that California “tells Ivan Peña that his rights have an expiration date based on payment of a government fee. Americans are not limited to a government list of approved books, or approved religions,” he said. “A handgun protected by the Second Amendment does not need to appear on any government-approved list and cannot be banned because a manufacturer does not pay a special annual fee.”

See the thread at Calguns.

Complaint filed in US District Court for the Eastern District of California. (May become known as "Pena")

Here, plaintiffs are opposing California law in Federal Court - and at least we can expect to have the Court address the merits, which would not have been possible before Nordyke. Success? We'll see. But this a Gura (Heller)/Kilmer (Nordyke)/Davis effort.

 

[Oro]

Perhaps this will brighten the days of a few people:

Yes, that does indeed brighten my day, and I'm not even under CA restrictions.

I have been waiting a while for the round of suits that will roll back so many laws - registration, licensing, possibly even taxation - to start.

There are things you just can't do to rights, which is the thought that so many people haven't started to even contemplate.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Perhaps this will brighten the days of a few people:

Calguns Foundation Files Suit, April 30, 2009

SAF, CALGUNS FOUNDATION CHALLENGES CALIFORNIA HANDGUN BAN SCHEME

For Immediate Release: 4/30/2009

BELLEVUE, WA and REDWOOD CITY, CA – The Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation and four California residents today filed a lawsuit challenging a California state law and regulatory scheme that arbitrarily bans handguns based on a roster of “certified” handguns approved by the State. This case parallels a similar case filed in Washington, DC, Hanson v. District of Columbia.

California uses this list despite a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last summer that protects handguns that ordinary people traditionally use for self-defense, and a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments. The California scheme will eventually ban the purchase of almost all new handguns.

Attorney Alan Gura, representing the plaintiffs in this case, noted that California “tells Ivan Peña that his rights have an expiration date based on payment of a government fee. Americans are not limited to a government list of approved books, or approved religions,” he said. “A handgun protected by the Second Amendment does not need to appear on any government-approved list and cannot be banned because a manufacturer does not pay a special annual fee.”

See the thread at Calguns.

Complaint filed in US District Court for the Eastern District of California. (May become known as "Pena")

Here, plaintiffs are opposing California law in Federal Court - and at least we can expect to have the Court address the merits, which would not have been possible before Nordyke. Success? We'll see. But this a Gura (Heller)/Kilmer (Nordyke)/Davis effort.

Wouldn't the other cases get to SCOTUS before this one, even though this is a great case?

.

 

[Phatty]

Wouldn't the other cases get to SCOTUS before this one, even though this is a great case?

Hopefully, we get a favorable ruling from the trial judge, and then we wouldn't care how long (if at all) it takes to get up to SCOTUS. Not every 2A case is filed with the specific intention of getting to SCOTUS.

 

[jwtownsend]

Heller and Nordyke

We can rest assured of one thing—Heller and Nordyke will create a lot of work for attorneys. We all need to encourage the Nordykes to appeal.

 

[hvengel]

One clarification. The law in question did NOT ban all guns on county property. It has a exception for those with concealed carry permits. I know none of the news releases or other sources mention this so I thought it was worth while bringing this up so that everyone had all the facts.

In addition one of the judges on the circuit has requested an en bank hearing of the case. The process is now underway but before the rehearing by the 11 judge panel a majority of the 48 judges on the circuit will have to vote for it. In addition the lawyers have been given 21 days to respond with briefs either concurring or opposing an en bank hearing.

 

[carebear]

hvengel,

Not doubting you but can you find a cite to that effect? If not I'll go hunting.

I'd like to look at the County ordinance. The upcoming SAF/Calgun suit against "may issue" might then resolve the possession/carry side of the problem.

That's the more important issue since gun shows can still be held off county property.

 

[Librarian]

I'd like to look at the County ordinance. The upcoming SAF/Calgun suit against "may issue" might then resolve the possession/carry side of the problem.

It's 9.12.120 - this link may be good: http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=16425&sid=5

F. Exceptions. Subsection 9.12.120B does not apply to the following:
1. A peace officer as defined in Title 3, Part 2, Chapter 4.5 of the California Penal Code (Sections 830 et seq.);
2. A guard or messenger of a financial institution, a guard of a contract carrier operating an armored vehicle, a licensed private investigator, patrol operator, or alarm company operator, or uniformed security guard as these occupations are defined in Penal Code Section 12031(d) and who holds a valid certificate issued by the Department of Consumer Affairs under Penal Code Section 12033, while actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment;
3. A person holding a valid license to carry a firearm issued pursuant to Penal Code Section 12050;
4. The possession of a firearm by an authorized participant in a motion picture, television, video, dance or theatrical production or event, when the participant lawfully uses the firearm as part of that production or event, provided that when such firearm is not in the actual possession of the authorized participant, it is secured to prevent unauthorized use.
5. A person lawfully transporting firearms or ammunition in a motor vehicle on county roads;
6. A person lawfully using the target range operated by the Alameda County sheriff;
7. A federal criminal investigator or law enforcement officer; or
8. A member of the military forces of the state of California or of the United States while engaged in the performance of his or her duty.

 

[carebear]

Thanks Librarian, I'm back in school (at 38, those kids all look so young) and haven't had as much free time.

That looks promising, Not saying throw gun shows under the bus but as they are allowed on private land and carry is not banned on County property Nordyke's "weakness" isn't so great as it might have seemed.