If they allow shows for other legal products at the fairgrounds, why not allow shows for legal products with specific constitutional protection? Seems to me that if they're going to allow any shows, gun shows should be allowed.
IMHO they would have an uphill battle. The 2A guarantees the right to bear
arms, not to conduct commerce
in arms. I seriously doubt that Nordyke's attorneys could successfully argue that the lack of a gun show at the Alameda County Fairgrounds is a serious obstacle to anyone's ability to legally defend themselves. Firearms are widely available elsewhere. A widespread ban or unreasonable regulation on the sale of arms- such as a total ban on gun stores throughout Alameda County
- could act as a de-facto gun ban, and would certainly be very
difficult to defend under D.C. v. Heller
, but that's not the case here.
The justices touch on this point on Pages 31 and 32 of the decision. Using an abortion court case as an example, they argue that just because something is protected under the Constitution and/or court precedent, that does not
imply that the government has an implied duty to ensure that it's readily available. As it relates to this court case, and regardless of my views on abortion (which IMHO are irrelevant here and will not be discussed), I agree with this argument.
oppose widespread restrictions on gun sales, but OTOH I don't see how the 2A could be interpreted to force the government to allow gun sales on government land.