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

« Just when you thought Fast and Furious could get no worse... | Main | March 20 »

Nordyke: the county blinks

Posted by David Hardy · 20 March 2012 02:29 PM

At oral argument, en banc, the county says it has amended its gun show ban to allow shows so long as guns are attached to the table by cable

Hat tip to thirtyearlawprof.....

· Nordyke v. King

8 Comments | Leave a comment

Matthew Carberry | March 20, 2012 4:49 PM | Reply

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.

CDR D | March 20, 2012 6:27 PM | Reply

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

But the decision is pending...

Jim D. | March 20, 2012 11:24 PM | Reply

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

Jim | March 21, 2012 1:39 AM | Reply

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

RKV | March 21, 2012 7:11 AM | Reply

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.

5thofNov | March 21, 2012 8:25 AM | Reply

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.

RKV | March 21, 2012 9:29 AM | Reply

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).

Smokey Behr | March 23, 2012 9:49 PM | Reply

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.

Leave a comment