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

« The times they are a-changing.... | Main | Another "this is pitiful" moment »

Oral argument on Nordyke v. King

Posted by David Hardy · 21 October 2010 04:32 PM

Audio is here. This is the argument on remand from the en banc panel, in light of the McDonald ruling.

· Nordyke v. King

4 Comments | Leave a comment

Anonymous | October 22, 2010 8:11 AM | Reply

Could any lawyer with expertise in this area please comment on the arguments? Is there any guess as to when the ruling might come down?

Jeff

Carl from Chicago | October 23, 2010 5:46 AM | Reply

Seems that it boils down to scrutiny and sensitive places. Since Heller, I've suspected that sensitive places will ultimately turn on whether a place has limited access points and metal detection. How that might play out for schools, I'm still uncertain.

Chuck | October 23, 2010 10:05 AM | Reply

It is the definition of "school" that is important to me. In Florida, we have 3 different definitions of "School" related to firearms. Some of those definitions include colleges and universities.

Many colleges and universities are located in and among our cities and many offer night courses. Parking lots are dark at night. Major city streets crisscross university campuses.

There is nothing magical about a college campus that makes it a sensitive place.

Just my opinion.

5thofNov | October 24, 2010 8:51 AM | Reply

Jeff,

1. The court didn't want to touch the second amendment issue. There own rules state that if the ruling on an issue of law, such as the second amendment changing and is now a "Fundamental" right, applied to the states. Their rules say that they can rule on it, instead of sending back to the District court again.

2. The court didn't want to use "Strict" scrutiny, and was looking for any reason to lower the standard of review. (They will use intermediate, hope I'm wrong.)

3. The court wanted to know why the county hadn't changed their ordinance to allow gun shows, since now they will have to rule on it, and they don't want to, as it will apply to the whole 9th circuit and not one county.

4. The court understands that they are going to get spanked a lot more in the USSC, since they are a bunch of tyrants! Not one court, except a circuit court in Wisconsin, has applied the correct standard of review.

5. @ Chuck, expect to see a lawsuit on this sometime this year, not talking about the Colorado case either, but there is one in Virginia to be argued in November that needs to be watched.

Leave a comment