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 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« News from Ruger | Main | To former Brady head: wake up and smell the coffee... »

Finally, a ruling in Nordyke v. King

Posted by David Hardy · 1 June 2012 11:11 AM

9th Circuit en banc opinion here. After thirteen years of litigation.... the County re-interprets its regulation banning gun shows to allow gun shows, under an exception that allows possession of firearms as part of an "event," provided they are secured when not in actual possession of the person participating, and the Ninth Circuit buys it. The majority argues that the minimal restriction employed (gun must generally be secured during gun shows on county property) would pass any level of scrutiny, The concurrences suggest that, after this many years of litigation, the court should at least state a level of scrutiny.

· Nordyke v. King

7 Comments | Leave a comment

Chuck | June 1, 2012 3:52 PM | Reply

I am very disappointed.

Critic | June 1, 2012 4:42 PM | Reply

From my reading it looks like the Nordykes lost, in the sense that their complaints were dismissed. So will they not be awarded attorneys fees? On the other hand, their complaints were dismissed because the county decided to allow the guns they had previously said were prohibited. So it seems the Nordykes should get their fees.

Jeff | June 1, 2012 5:39 PM | Reply

Mr. Hardy,

What is your read on this result?

RKV | June 2, 2012 5:49 AM | Reply

The county folded. Gave the Nordykes more or less what they asked for (of course we have to make sure that Alameda actually does what they say they are going to do) as concessions made verbally before the panel of judges in oral argument. And yes, the Nordykes should get damages and costs to be made whole for the years of intransigence and bad faith on the part of Alameda County. That is another lawsuit.

CDR D | June 2, 2012 3:59 PM | Reply

I live in Alameda County, and the way the local news is reporting this is bizarre.

They are saying that the Court threw out Rusty and Sally's complaint because all along the County Ordinance allowed the guns to be at the show if "tethered".

This is a steaming pile of BS.

The County told the Nordykes they could have a show, but no guns. The participants with tables could have "pictures" of guns they were offering for sale or trade, but no actual guns.

5thofNov | June 2, 2012 4:15 PM | Reply

The attorney for the Nordykes, accepted the guns being tethered in front of the panel...he should have said no. I'm not sure if he was the orginal attorney or not, but he didn't sound very good during orals...so you get what you pay for.

Matthew Carberry | June 5, 2012 12:52 PM | Reply

The County essentially said they would abide by the same firearm rules for gun shows as for the historical events (control of owner, tethered if not).

The narrow issue was the County wanting to -ban- guns on county property for gun show events but not other events, that the court ruled narrowly shouldn't be a surprise. Especially since private venues were and are available without such restrictions, so the 2A impact was localized.

The County got slapped, no bad precedent came into play, and the idea that effective bans are allowable is going to be hard to make in other contexts.

Such as in Peruta's appeal, which was waiting on this case to finish. Recall that the original judge in Peruta said discretionary "may-issue" was an allowable infringement on 2A rights because permitless open carry was theoretically legal. OC is now banned and there are good arguments out of other Circuits that some form of effective carry must be allowed.

The County folding in Nordyke on a lesser infringement (banning of gun shows on county property when the alternative of private venues remained wide open) rather than pushing for a decision in their favor can't help San Diego County's ability to claim that near-ban level restrictive may-issue, without an alternative method like OC, is somehow allowable.

Leave a comment