Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Steve Halbrook testifies on Eric Holder nomination | Main | Debate on shall issue's effect on crime continues »

Oral argument in Nordyke v. King

Posted by David Hardy · 16 January 2009 07:15 AM

Audio here, in Windows Media Format. Great line by one of the judges, when the County advocate argued that while you can't physically have guns at a gun show, you still could offer to sell them, then consummate the sale off the county fairgrounds:

"I just have trouble with the concept that you can have a gun show so long as you don't show guns."

Hard to judge the three-judge panel's inclinations from the argument (although their handling of the appeal suggests they are at least open to 14th Amendment incorporation). Not a lot of questions. They ask the appellant's counsel, Don Kilmer, whether they are bound by the previous 9th Circuit ruling in Fresno Rifle, refusing to incorporate. On the other hand, a judge does tell the county advocate that he should discuss incorporation when he tries to sidestep it. And then the judge suggests that, while Heller does not decide incorporation, it argues at great length that the right to arms is fundamental, is deeply rooted in American history, etc.. County advocate dodges with argument that the Heller right to possess in the home may be fundamental, but here we deal with possession on government land. Judge comes back with, what if this gun show were in D.C., so incorporation isn't at issue, would the result be different? County advocate gets tripped up. (No time meter showing, but this is about 90% thru the argument). County advocate argues Heller sez the reason right to arms was codified was fear of federal tyranny, hence it should not apply to States.

Side questions as to whether, if they incorporate, they should rule on the ordinance in question, or send it back to the trial court to determine the ultimate question.

· Nordyke v. King

10 Comments | Leave a comment

robert | January 17, 2009 6:16 AM | Reply

Disgusting fighting the Government for the rights promised BY the government. Aren't the police sworn to protect and uphold the Constitution? Why can't someone call them and have these folks tossed out of court by the scruff of the neck.....
...oh wait...I forgot. Parallel universe...

RKV | January 17, 2009 7:15 AM | Reply

"Dear Lord, For what we are about to receive may we be truly thankful. Amen."

I wish this was any other circuit than the 9th, given it's track record of being over-turned by the Supremes. Either way it's a crap shoot.

Melancton Smith | January 17, 2009 11:03 PM | Reply

Well, it really is so easy that even the 9th Circuit can get it right.

Jim | January 18, 2009 4:08 AM | Reply

We're just lucky the right judges are on that panel. And the timing of this case is a huge stroke of luck. Still no guarantee they will incorporate and if they do, the word on the street is that Almeda won't be appealing, at least past requesting a rehearing en banc.

I'm surprised this case has not gotten more attention. This is nearly as big as Heller at this point.

Bill Wiese | January 18, 2009 11:51 PM | Reply

I, along with other Calguns Foundation board members (including Gene Hoffman) and a variety of other RKBA advocates attended.

The laughter from the audience about "gunshows without guns" comment from the bench was hearty yet polite and seemed in sync with bench's thinking - and certainly did not appear to irritate the panel.

There were approximately 5 Brady/LCAV types in the audience - outnumbered by the 160 folks in the courtroom and overflow rooms. One of the LCAV (Legal Comm. Against Violence) advisers was at the Alameda counsel's table and maintained a glum countenance thru the hearing. The Brady/LCAV supporters in audience hurried away without comment, a local newspaper reporter was trying to find a non-RKBA viewpoint.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
The Calguns Foundation


CDR D | January 19, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply

Rusty Nordyke is a casual friend, and I am proud of him for his persistence in this case. Most people would have given up faced with the Byzantine-like procedure of our judicial process.

The thing that makes my head explode is the outright misrepresentations by the main stream liars trying to manipulate public opinion on the issue.

KPIX here in the Bay Area said that Rusty had his gun shows during the annual Alameda County Fair. This is a blatant LIE. Rusty had his gun shows on fairgrounds property at times OTHER than when the fair was being held. So did all the other shows - dog shows, cat shows, car shows, RV shows, etc.

Check out the bullshit here:

http://cbs5.com/localwire/22.0.html?type=bcn&item=GUN-SHOW-ARGUMENTS-baglm

Bill Wiese | January 20, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply

CDR D,

The KPIX report about this is less a product of any malice than general confusion in press over gun issues in general.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA


CDR D | January 20, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply

Bill,

No doubt there is a "general confusion" in the press about guns and gun issues.

But the article basically leads the reader to believe that the gun shows were held simultaneously with the annual county fair, which is patently false. The fair is held for a couple of weeks in the summer, and none of the shows I mentioned are held while the fair is open. The various and eclectic shows are held on fairgrounds property at times other than when the fair is in session.

You'll note that one of the reasons (perhaps the ultimate reason) that the board of supes threw Rusty and his show out was because of a gun related incident at the fair when the fair was in session. It leads the reader to believe that there was a gun show during the fair (there was not), and someone went nuts with a gun.

You can give KPIX the benefit of the doubt wrt to "malice" if you like.

I don't.

Don Kilmer | January 20, 2009 11:37 PM | Reply

The press may have got it wrong, but the undisputed facts before the Court (which is the audience that really matters) were that the gun shows had nothing to do with the county fair.

An Army of Davids | January 22, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply

Don Kilmer!

Sir,

You have helped create the road map to Victory and defended the principles of the Constitution as well as any of our past heros regardless of what a court of men may decide. Our Republic thanks you and your clients for your service and dedication!!!

Leave a comment