18 replies to this topic

[GarandFan]

At this point in time, this case is all about the level of scrutiny.

The NRAs brief, here authored by former Solicitor General Paul Clement, is excellent.  It demolishes Alameda's argument that gun show bans are constitutional in a post-Heller and post-McDonald America.

http://www.calgunlaw...e/nraamicus.pdf

Alan Gura and SAF just submitted a brief as well, but I have not found it yet.


ETA: Found it.  In fact, I found many briefs.  They are here: http://www.calgunlaws.com/

In a nutshell, many of the pro-briefs argue why strict scrutiny is appropriate, while many of the anti-briefs argue that the 2A is a "lesser" fundamental right than others, and not subject to strict scrutiny.  It's interesting.

[Ol'Coach]

So, they are saying that there are degrees of rights?

Reckon that's why they're numbered, 1-27?

I don't think so, even though that would put "...the right to keep and bear" at #2!

[lockman]

Brady Campaigns argument is basically that rights can be restricted or denied if they can potentially or maybe because they exist be unlawfully used to deprive another their rights. Therefore, they are evil and no one other than the police should be allowed to use them to trample your rights. They fail to realize the senerio they portray is not the abuse of a right it is a crime.

[mauserme]

According to Calguns, oral arguments are set for October 19, 2010 @ 1:30 PM.

[mauserme]

They are in session now and Calguns is tweeting

http://twitter.com/#...!/Calgunsdotnet

Quote

Nordykes allowed to present in a surprisingly long time

Quote

1st question is about county as "proprietor"

EDIT:  And now there is nothing ....

[mauserme]

Quote

Don't you need to go back to district to handle intermediate versus strict?

Quote

Nordykes: Right to acquire firearms is a core 2A right.

[mauserme]

[quote]
Couldn't it be argued that this is a discrimination against a certain use of guns without rational basis?
[/quote]

[quote]
McDonald emphasizes that the 2A is a substantial fundamental right, suggesting strict scrutiny - why shouldn't we apply strict scrutiny?
[/quote]

[quote]
Alameda: look over here at the victims of a mass shooting
[/quote]

[quote]
Time up. Additional question. Can no one possess a firearm on county property? Well, they can exert a defense to a prosecution.
[/quote]


[quote]
Do buyers at gunshows take possession upon purchase? No, they take delivery later per state law.
[/quote]

[quote]
Nordyke: narrow tailoring is installing metal detectors. Fairgrounds can't be sensitive as CCW holders are specifically exempted.
[/quote]



Must have lost my feed again as the last update was over 20 minutes ago.

[mauserme]

I missed too much to know for sure, but I think this is really good

Quote

Please strike the ordinance. Court adjourned.

Need to find transcripts.

[05FLHT]

mauserme, on 19 October 2010 - 04:00 PM, said:

I missed too much to know for sure, but I think this is really good

Quote

Please strike the ordinance. Court adjourned.

Need to find transcripts.

Chatter on Calguns is that the quote "please strike the ordinance" is from the appellants, not the court.

[mauserme]

05FLHT, on 19 October 2010 - 05:51 PM, said:

Chatter on Calguns is that the quote "please strike the ordinance" is from the appellants, not the court.

It seemed to quick - thanks for clarifying.

[mauserme]

Interesting audio of the arguments is here

http://www.ca9.uscou...k_id=0000006368

Its well worth 34 minutes to listen.

The actual statement by appellant's attorney regarding the ordinance was:

Quote

... It should be struck down or the court should give the county the opportunity to perhaps add an exception to their ordinance for gun shows, or it shuold be struck down.  Thank you.

At which point the court adjourns.


It seems to me the Nordykes had the stronger argument.

[Howard Roark]

mauserme, on 20 October 2010 - 12:38 PM, said:

Interesting audio of the arguments is here

http://www.ca9.uscou...k_id=0000006368

Its well worth 34 minutes to listen.

The actual statement by appellant's attorney regarding the ordinance was:

Quote

... It should be struck down or the court should give the county the opportunity to perhaps add an exception to their ordinance for gun shows, or it shuold be struck down.  Thank you.

At which point the court adjourns.


It seems to me the Nordykes had the stronger argument.

I listened to all of it and agree with you.  The lawyer for the Nordykes was good and the judges seemed knowledgeable about Heller/McDonald.  It is just too funny that Alameda County bans gun shows from the County Fairground, but willfully lets guns onto the Fairgrounds for historical reinactments (the Scottish Games).  That hurts their case.  And because they don't have the preemption tool, they're not able to ban CCW because California allows it.  Alameda county just hates gun shows.  They're haters.  The audio is a good listen if you are in a cheer-up mood !

[GarandFan]

What's more, they are arguing that the fairgrounds is a "sensitive place", all while allowing some venues to include guns and not others, and all while not prohibiting licensed concealed carry there.

My take of the matter is that they've argued the rug out from under themselves.

At this point, the case ... the issues ... is level of scrutiny and what defines a sensitive place.  Obviously, those two issues will be among those of foremost importance going forward.

[Federal Farmer]

I haven't read the opinionyet but my impression is that the 9th sidestepped the 2A issues.

[05FLHT]

Federal Farmer, on 01 June 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

I haven't read the opinionyet but my impression is that the 9th sidestepped the 2A issues.

Yep, they sidestepped the issue, but not for the usual reasons. At orals, the tethering issue came up and both sides agreed a gun show could be held with the firearms secured. Pretty much mooted the case, IMO. I think it's past time that Nordyke went away(finally & for good).

[GarandFan]

What happened is that the county wholly capitulated on the primary issue ... guns at gun shows ... and now newspaper headlines are screaming "Circuit court upholds county gun show ordinance."

Completely disingenuous, if you ask me.

The bigger question ... one few seem to be asking and no one is answering ... is why Alameda county capitulated on this issue?  I am just speculating here, but I'd guess the backstory on the capitulation would be most interesting!

[bob]

05FLHT, on 01 June 2012 - 09:54 AM, said:

Federal Farmer, on 01 June 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

I haven't read the opinionyet but my impression is that the 9th sidestepped the 2A issues.

Yep, they sidestepped the issue, but not for the usual reasons. At orals, the tethering issue came up and both sides agreed a gun show could be held with the firearms secured. Pretty much mooted the case, IMO. I think it's past time that Nordyke went away(finally & for good).

As a second amendment case it always seemed very tenuous to me. The county never banned guns, or banned gun shows. Just chose to not permit gun shows on its own property.

Lots of legal fees spent by several entities. Not much in the way to show for it 2A wise.

Edited by bob, 03 June 2012 - 11:46 AM.

[lockman]

bob, on 03 June 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

05FLHT, on 01 June 2012 - 09:54 AM, said:

Federal Farmer, on 01 June 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

I haven't read the opinionyet but my impression is that the 9th sidestepped the 2A issues.

Yep, they sidestepped the issue, but not for the usual reasons. At orals, the tethering issue came up and both sides agreed a gun show could be held with the firearms secured. Pretty much mooted the case, IMO. I think it's past time that Nordyke went away(finally & for good).

As a second amendment case it always seemed very tenuous to me. The county never banned guns, or banned gun shows. Just chose to not permit gun shows on its own property.

Lots of legal fees spent by several entities. Not much in the way to show for it 2A wise.

It should be a 2A case, the city does not own it, the people do. States, counties, municipalities and other taxing bodies should not be allowed to prohibit carry on the people's property, they are not private property owners.

[bob]

lockman, on 03 June 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

It should be a 2A case, the city does not own it, the people do. States, counties, municipalities and other taxing bodies should not be allowed to prohibit carry on the people's property, they are not private property owners.

SCOTUS would disagree with you. The majority of the "sensitive" areas where carry is banned even in more permissive states are public property.

In this state it is a class A misdemeanor just to drive through a park with an unloaded handgun locked in a case in your trunk.

One might argue that just driving through you are covered by FOPA but that is a court case and a lot of legal fees and a lot of grief in some jurisdictions. It is why I am not fond of fanny pack carry. There are just way too many places where that particular law could be used against you.