Now Peruta can move forward, with Nordyke's "heightened review" securely in place for Second Amendment questions in the Ninth Circuit and the example out of Maryland on what that means vis-a-vis discretionary licensing.

Well, it does look like a bit of a retreat by the county.

But the decision is pending...

If cables on the tables gets tossed, you can kiss gun locks goodbye.

12 years of litigation and that's the end result?

Jim, in case you didn't notice Nordyke started before Heller and McDonald. The legal landscape shifted mightily in the intervening period. The fight is on with regard to how 2nd Amendment jurisprudence will handle the emanations and penumbras of the amendment. For instance, subject to the commerce clause, how may states regulate the sales of guns? If you look at the track record of the supes the answer is not very much. Which is why the county and the 9th Circuit panel want to run away, run away. Specifically look at Carey v. Population Planning Services. The supes said "enumerated right?" then you have intermediate scrutiny as a minimum. Many many gun laws are going to fall over time. And the liberals set themselves up for this with their own judicial approach. Could not happen to a more deserving bunch of apparatchiks.

And the devil is in the details. So the county counsel stipulated. The politicians and bureaucrats are going to drag their feet, just like for the last 12 years. Expect it. Prepare for it. Expose it.

Look...it's easy to monday morning quarterback.....I don't think Calguns did a very good job this time. Do you really think it needs to go back to the dc for FURTHER fact finding??? Come on guys....learn how to answer their questions and when their questions are meant to throw you off track. Stay focused.

How many guns are sold...we don't have that in the record....WTF....it doesn't matter if its 1 or 1,000,000. What type of guns...AK47's??? WTF....ONLY LEGAL GUNS are sold. I seriously had a hard time listening to it.

Before you get down on Calguns, remember that there are two parties involved. Three if you count the court itself and I do. It has its own interests to look after. Now we watch what the county does, and hold it to the stipulation. Back to court if they go slow or sideways (or backwards).

Alameda punted and punted, and when it came down to the final arguments, they rolled over and played dead. It was a waste of time and money for both parties. If Alameda had stipulated early on that "cables on the tables" would have been fine, then this whole mess would have been over a LOT sooner. Now it's going back to the District Court to be rehashed. If the DC screws it up, we're looking at another round of appeals.