13 replies to this topic

[Federal Farmer]

From volokh.com.

Article contains links to relevant information.

[GarandFan]

Federal Farmer, on 28 November 2011 - 08:19 PM, said:

From volokh.com.

Article contains links to relevant information.

Sheesh.  The never-ending case.  En banc again?

It seems that one of the reasons they requested en banc is a pretty good one (in my mind, at least):

This petition also seeks En Banc Rehearing of this matter for
three reasons: (1) To consider the exceptionally important question of
why – with respect to the Second Amendment, an enumerated
fundamental right – the verb clause “undue burden” is an appropriate
substitute for the verb “infringed.”

Much more here: http://wiki.calgunsf...Nordyke_v._King

[bob]

This case has always baffled me. It seems like a straightforward loser to me.

It seems mostly about some supposed right to sell guns on county property.

There is no right to sell books on county property so why should there be any reason to think think one has the right to sell guns there?

The lawyers have managed to get a fair amount of mileage out of it regardless, but the basic case seems like something the courts should have disposed of a long time ago. I think the lawyers fooled the courts into thinking the case was about something other than a commercial interest, which is probably good for us, and now that they have delved into something they probably did not need to, they feel like they have to work through it.

[Federal Farmer]

bob, on 29 November 2011 - 06:52 AM, said:

This case has always baffled me. It seems like a straightforward loser to me.

It seems mostly about some supposed right to sell guns on county property.

There is no right to sell books on county property so why should there be any reason to think think one has the right to sell guns there?

The lawyers have managed to get a fair amount of mileage out of it regardless, but the basic case seems like something the courts should have disposed of a long time ago. I think the lawyers fooled the courts into thinking the case was about something other than a commercial interest, which is probably good for us, and now that they have delved into something they probably did not need to, they feel like they have to work through it.

I think if they had a content-neutral ban on selling things on the property it would be an easier loser.  Also, they hold annual Scottish games or whatever it is that does involve bringing firearms onto the property.

[bob]

Federal Farmer, on 29 November 2011 - 07:45 AM, said:

I think if they had a content-neutral ban on selling things on the property it would be an easier loser.  Also, they hold annual Scottish games or whatever it is that does involve bringing firearms onto the property.

I don't recall any claim by our side in this that there is a need to be content neutral on what the county allows to be sold at the fairgrounds.

It just seems like a stretch to try and turn this into something about the 2A.

The 2A was never intended to include a right to sell guns on government property.

[Smallbore]

I would think for a right to be a right, public owned property would be the logical place to expect it to be exercised. Not much of a right if limited to the home.

[bob]

Smallbore, on 05 December 2011 - 09:22 AM, said:

I would think for a right to be a right, public owned property would be the logical place to expect it to be exercised. Not much of a right if limited to the home.

I would tend to agree if one is talking about the right to keep and/or bear arms.

Nothing in the 2A about commerce in arms.

[Federal Farmer]

bob, on 05 December 2011 - 10:11 PM, said:

Smallbore, on 05 December 2011 - 09:22 AM, said:

I would think for a right to be a right, public owned property would be the logical place to expect it to be exercised. Not much of a right if limited to the home.

I would tend to agree if one is talking about the right to keep and/or bear arms.

Nothing in the 2A about commerce in arms.

Not true.  If the infringement on commerce sufficiently inhibits the right, of even a few, to acquire arms to bear, it infringes the right to keep and bear.  There's plenty of caselaw to support that if you want to dig.

[bob]

Federal Farmer, on 06 December 2011 - 08:03 AM, said:

bob, on 05 December 2011 - 10:11 PM, said:

Smallbore, on 05 December 2011 - 09:22 AM, said:

I would think for a right to be a right, public owned property would be the logical place to expect it to be exercised. Not much of a right if limited to the home.

I would tend to agree if one is talking about the right to keep and/or bear arms.

Nothing in the 2A about commerce in arms.

Not true.  If the infringement on commerce sufficiently inhibits the right, of even a few, to acquire arms to bear, it infringes the right to keep and bear.  There's plenty of caselaw to support that if you want to dig.

That's a bunch of BS. There is no infringement of the core right just because the county does not want a gun show at the fair grounds. No one can take delivery at the fairgrounds anyway due to the CA waiting period.

[Federal Farmer]

bob, on 06 December 2011 - 02:35 PM, said:

Federal Farmer, on 06 December 2011 - 08:03 AM, said:

Not true.  If the infringement on commerce sufficiently inhibits the right, of even a few, to acquire arms to bear, it infringes the right to keep and bear.  There's plenty of caselaw to support that if you want to dig.

That's a bunch of BS. There is no infringement of the core right just because the county does not want a gun show at the fair grounds. No one can take delivery at the fairgrounds anyway due to the CA waiting period.

You'll notice that I qualified the statement "If the infringementon commerce sufficiently inhibits...".  That's what the court will decide.

This was meant to rebut your blanket assertion that there is "nothing in the 2A about commerce in arms."

[stm]

If you look at the Ezell ruling, it says that just because a range (or gun show) is available in another jurisdiction, it doesn't justify banning it in this jurisdiction. You can't exercise the right to keep and bear arms if you can't buy them. However, I don't think this case meets this standard. Are gun shows and gun stores banned from the entire county or city? Or just this one place? I always thought there was more than just 2A issues at stake in this case.

[Federal Farmer]

stm, on 06 December 2011 - 03:24 PM, said:

If you look at the Ezell ruling, it says that just because a range (or gun show) is available in another jurisdiction, it doesn't justify banning it in this jurisdiction. You can't exercise the right to keep and bear arms if you can't buy them. However, I don't think this case meets this standard. Are gun shows and gun stores banned from the entire county or city? Or just this one place? I always thought there was more than just 2A issues at stake in this case.

This case has been going on for 12 years, I think, and if I recall correctly, the 2A complaint was only added post-Heller.

[bob]

Federal Farmer, on 06 December 2011 - 03:28 PM, said:

stm, on 06 December 2011 - 03:24 PM, said:

If you look at the Ezell ruling, it says that just because a range (or gun show) is available in another jurisdiction, it doesn't justify banning it in this jurisdiction. You can't exercise the right to keep and bear arms if you can't buy them. However, I don't think this case meets this standard. Are gun shows and gun stores banned from the entire county or city? Or just this one place? I always thought there was more than just 2A issues at stake in this case.

This case has been going on for 12 years, I think, and if I recall correctly, the 2A complaint was only added post-Heller.

Someone has spent a ton of money on an almost sure loser. I have often wondered if there is some legal strategy that is not apparrent going on here.

I would agree that it would be a 2A issue if the gun show had been the only place to buy a gun in the county. The fact is that under current CA law you could not actually buy a gun there. You have to go thru their background check and waiting period and it has to be delivered at the address of the FFL.

IIRC, they started out claiming it was a free speech issue, another sure loser, given the restrictions on political speech SCOTUS decided were acceptable.

[Smallbore]

I guess I am just a citizen with no legal smarts. I know the government claims power to regulate everything everywhere for the public good. I just do not like or agree that it is good for the public. Since the county does allow commerce, then I simply believe the seeking of a fundamental right should not be forbidden. I also have a problem with restricting where taking pocession of a fundamental right can happen. Of course I am just an old guy longing for the past.