{"id":1015,"date":"2012-06-01T13:05:26","date_gmt":"2012-06-01T17:05:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/monachuslex.com\/?p=1015"},"modified":"2012-09-05T22:34:49","modified_gmt":"2012-09-05T22:34:49","slug":"ninth-circuit-issues-holding-in-nordyke-v-king","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/?p=1015","title":{"rendered":"Ninth Circuit issues holding in Nordyke v. King"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, has finally issued a holding in the case of Nordyke v. King<\/em>.<\/p>\n

This case involved an ordinance passed by Alameda County in California. \u00a0The ordinance generally prohibited the possession of firearms on county property, including fairgrounds where gun shows were traditionally held.<\/p>\n

The Nordykes, gun show promoters, \u00a0challenged this ordinance as a violation of their Second Amendment rights.<\/p>\n

As the court noted in its opinion, the substantive constitutional framework for evaluating Second Amendment cases has changed significantly in the twelve years since this case was first filed.<\/p>\n

Since then, the holding in \u00a0District of Columbia v. Heller<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>established that the right enumerated in the Second Amendment is an individual right and the holding in\u00a0McDonald v. Chicago<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>has incorporated that right against the states via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.<\/p>\n

But as the court also noted, the standard of review for Second Amendment cases is still evolving. \u00a0Ultimately however, the court avoiding contributing to this area of evolving jurisprudence by holding that the Nordyke’s claim did not survive any possible standard of review. \u00a0They based this upon the rather remarkable concession by Alameda County at oral arguments on March 19th of this year that “a gun show is an ‘event’ within the meaning\u00a0of exception (f)(4)” of the challenged ordinance and therefore, gun shows may be conducted there. \u00a0The county went on to concede that “buyers\u00a0may physically inspect properly secured firearms.”<\/p>\n

In accepting this concession, the court enjoined the county from “add[ing] new requirements or enforc[ing]\u00a0the ordinance unequally” and noted that if “the County at any time fail[s] to apply the ordinance as it represented it at\u00a0oral argument, Plaintiffs may of course bring [a new] suit.” \u00a0One would expect that the court would view any such antics on the part of the county with significant displeasure.<\/p>\n

This holding seemingly puts municipalities on notice that they cannot impose content-based bans on otherwise legal firearms events in government-owned venues that are rented to the public. \u00a0However, the ruling did let stand the rather cumbersome requirements proposed by the county during oral arguments.<\/p>\n

The county proposed that “when a ‘firearm\u00a0is not in the actual possession of the authorized participant,’\u00a0the firearm must be ‘secured to prevent unauthorized use’ [and that] ‘a sturdy cable attaching the firearm to a fixture, such as a table, would'” satisfy this requirement.<\/p>\n

As Judge Ikuta and Judge Callahan noted in their lukewarm concurrence, the court’s use of a “rule of thumb” test rather than addressing the county’s conceded requirements under some specifically articulated standard of review was a bit of a “rough-justice” approach. \u00a0It not only allowed them to reach a holding without addressing the tougher issue of standard of review but potentially allowed the county to impose requirements that are stricter than should be allowed.<\/p>\n

The majority reaches this conclusion notwithstanding\u00a0the lack of any basis in the record to ascertain how the\u00a0requirement that firearms be tethered to a table, actually burdens gun shows, or the nature of the fit\u00a0between this burden and the government\u2019s alleged purpose to\u00a0\u201cpromote the public health and safety by contributing to the\u00a0reduction of gunshot fatalities and injuries in the County.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Ultimately, this is a victory for gun rights. \u00a0However, I note with some sadness that the county effectively denied the right to hold gun shows on their property for 12 years, cost the plaintiffs tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, and “discovered” at the end that they had an exception all along.<\/p>\n

The entire ruling may be read below.<\/p>\n\n

GDE Error: Unable to load requested profile.<\/div>\n\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, has finally issued a holding in the case of Nordyke v. King. This case involved an ordinance passed by Alameda County in California. \u00a0The ordinance generally prohibited the possession of firearms … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,19,68,86],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1015","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-abuse-of-power","category-california","category-nordyke-v-king","category-second-amendment-case-law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1015","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1015"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1015\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1881,"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1015\/revisions\/1881"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1015"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1015"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1015"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}