|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 18, 2010, 10:52 PM | #1 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
More on the Nordyke Case (CA - 9th Circuit)
Of the 19 cases (so far) listed in the Current 2A Cases thread, the following cases are supported by the SAF, CRPAF (CA Rifle and Pistol Assoc. Foundation), CalGuns Foundation or some combination of the foregoing:
I mention this, because to an awful lot of gunnies, CA is a distasteful word in their mouths and thoughts. So it appears that CA is going to help lead the pack on how to restore our 2A rights at the State level. Consider that, the next time you wish to deride Californian gun owners. Since I put Nordyke at the beginning of the list above, I thought some of you might be interested in knowing what is going on. As you might recall, the en banc sent the case back to the original panel to weigh in, now that McDonald has been decided, vacating their original decision. The panel made a call for supplemental briefs in light of McDonald. These briefs were due today. The first brief was an amicus brief by the CRPAF, yesterday which focused upon the "sensitive places" issue. Today, the rest of the briefs were filed:
|
August 19, 2010, 09:09 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Thanks for staying on top of this, Al. As a California ex-patriot, what happens there still means something to me and the family members of mine still living there.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
August 19, 2010, 09:15 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2010
Posts: 1,191
|
Thanks for posting
-CA front line soldier
__________________
The Day You Get Comfortable Is The Day You Get Careless... |
August 19, 2010, 11:33 AM | #4 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
In short, the NRA brief mentions the finding in McDonald that the right protected by the 2nd Amendment is "fundamental," and therefore deserving of strict scrutiny. The Nordyke brief argues along the same lines, asserting that the ordinance is not "narrowly tailored to address a legitimate compelling interest."
The Brady Campaign brief rehashes their argument in McDonald that the 2nd Amendment can be regulated more broadly than other liberties because its exercise carries perceived material risks. The SAF brief takes a novel approach in showing that the ordinance creates an undue burden on those seeking to procure a gun, since the number of gun dealers in Almeida county has decreased drastically. Eliminating gun shows severely limits the ability of citizens of the county to acquire weapons. The LCAV brief is the one that worries me. It provides a relatively (to judges so inclined) painless roadmap towards a standard of intermediate scrutiny which looks quite close to rational basis.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
August 19, 2010, 12:45 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
The NRA brief is led by non-other than Paul Clement, of Heller I infamy, in which he openly recants his intermediate scrutiny argument, and makes a impregnable case for strict scrutiny. Clements has huge personal credibility with the court.
The SAF brief in my opinion, destroys any ground on which arguments for the fairgrounds being sensitive, or arguments for intermediate scrutiny could survive. Gura's SAF brief is brilliant, compelling and crystal clear, as usual. |
August 19, 2010, 01:01 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Quote:
Intermediate scrutiny may need to look less like rational-basis for it to get by the court in this case. Or did I miss something else in the brief? Heck, I ain't no lawyer.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy Last edited by CowTowner; August 19, 2010 at 01:06 PM. |
|
August 19, 2010, 01:07 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
|
|
August 19, 2010, 01:56 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2010
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 368
|
Quote:
DD |
|
August 19, 2010, 02:31 PM | #9 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
A few notes of what caught my interest on what the briefs have to say. First, Alameda County: In the Brady Center amicus brief for Alameda County, among their many errors, one particular error stands out. The Brady brief suggests that no State High Court has ever applied the strict scrutiny standard to 2A challenges; Quote:
The Brady Center used the Wisconsin case, ignoring prior precedent. Something I'm sure the 9th Circuit panel will not do. As usual, the Brady brief centers on the idea that because guns can kill, this makes the right something different than what it is. Such a second class right needs only a deferential balancing test (ignoring that both Heller and McDonald rejected such a balancing test). The LCAV brief tries to make the inference that the conduct of commerce falls outside of the 2A (there is no right of the people to obtain firearms) and therefore mere rational basis scrutiny attends. The police powers of the County extend to keeping its residents safe on County property, over and above any imagined enumerated right. The brief by the County of Alameda insists that it has the proper role of protecting its citizens who meet "in large numbers" (left undefined) on county property. Even though there has never been any violence at any gun show, the County reasons that because "gun violence" occurred at a prior county fair, this alone meets the criteria of a sensitive place and for keeping gun shows out of county grounds. That's about it for the opposition. IMO, these briefs are weak on their face. Meanwhile, the briefs for the Nordykes (and their amici), delve into what the SCOTUS has actually said. They take into account that gun shows are a means for expressive speech. That the law is unlawful in that it disallows speech based upon content alone, and not based upon neutral time, place or manner restrictions. That without a right to buy and sell property (guns and ammo), the 2A right is meaningless. That the County enacted a law, solely to keep gun shows out, while allowing other commercial organizations to have guns, thereby discriminating against a class of people (equal protection clause of the 14th). Finally, that in both Heller and McDonald, the Court took rational basis off the table, as well as deferential intermediate scrutiny. Therefore, strict scrutiny must apply, as it does in most 1A cases. If you decide to read any of the briefs, I would suggest that you read the NRA brief first. It is authored by former S.G. Paul Clements. In this brief, he basically states that he was wrong in his position, as he argued for the government in Heller. Despite the time taken from Alan Gura during the orals in McDonald, this brief is a "must read." Mr Clement goes to a great length showing how the SCOTUS not only rejected any rational basis test on 2A grounds, but that Justice Breyers "interest-balancing" approach is nothing more than intermediate scrutiny, cloaked in other words, which both Heller and McDonald also rejected. The only test left, is strict scrutiny. Secondly, read the SAF brief. It is authored by Alan Gura. In this brief, Gura notes that the 9th Circuit panel can simply do what the SCOTUS did, and knock down the law (as rational basis and interest balancing are off the table), without stating any level of scrutiny at all. What I liked most about Guras brief, is that he correctly shows that intermediate scrutiny is not descended from strict scrutiny, but rather is a more imposing form (of scrutiny) arising from rational basis. |
||
August 19, 2010, 03:48 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Excellent. When is the next date of any activity on this case? 'The Future of the Case' segment on Wiki ends at the en banc decision.
|
August 19, 2010, 07:12 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 28, 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 400
|
Just have to say, I would never deride a CA gun owner. It's not their fault the legislature in their fair state are a bunch of fear mongering anti-gun loonies! Empathize, yes. Deride, never.
just my .02 |
August 20, 2010, 07:30 AM | #12 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Ordinarily, there would be a given time line for things to be done. In this case, because the en banc court vacated and remanded back to the originating panel, things appear to be expedited.
My best guess (and that's all it is) is that within 2 weeks, we will hear if there will be new orals or if the panel will simply take the case as argued in the supplemental briefs. |
Tags |
california , nordyke , second amendment |
|
|