View Single Post
Old April 21, 2009, 09:51 AM   #27
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,271
. . . according to the court, how exactly is county property a sensitive place any more than a downtown gun shop?
The opinion makes it clear that the justices of the Ninth Circuit think the county has a compelling public health and safety interest in prohibiting guns from places where large numbers of people gather. They argue that the fairgrounds is a "sensitive place" as referenced in Heller (pg. 33 of the PDF).

In essence, they're saying that the individual's right to self-defense is overridden by the need to provide safety for the general public. I don't agree with their argument in this case and I think there's good reason to debate it, but IMHO it's hard to say whether this particular court case is the best avenue for that. After all, the whole reason behind the lawsuit is to allow a gun show to take place. Establishing a right to self-defense in public gathering places still wouldn't necessarily guarantee that the promoters would be able to hold their show, so it's hard to say how much further they will try to carry this argument.
If guns can be prohibited on any county property, any city property, and any federal property, Then what would remain of the second amendment? Government property is the PEOPLES property.
I don't think any mainstream court will agree with the absolutist argument that the 2A allows citizens to carry arms on all government land, including such places as courthouses, jails, and military bases. However, I think there's certainly room to argue whether they should be allowed in public gathering places.
There is way too much room for mischief here.
Yes, there is. However, IMHO there will probably be better opportunities to argue how far the right to self-defense extends into the public sphere. If an anti-gun local government tries to prohibit legal CHL holders from carrying in public gathering places- which IMHO is nearly inevitable- it will provide a much better avenue for arguing this point.
Does anyone have a sense of whether challenging this decision would risk overturning incorporation, since they weren't relying on non-incorporation to deny it?
I don't get that sense.
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Page generated in 0.04216 seconds with 7 queries