Quote:
|
12 years of litigation and they just now say this? Holy Hanna, Batman!!
|
There is significant evidence in the record that the county's position, since at least as far back as 2008, was that the gun shows could be held if the weapons were secured. They weren't shouting this from the rooftops by any means, but it IS in the record, including a discussion of cabling as the means to secure the guns.
See this thread for discussion and arguments, especially those presented by Calguns member 'fabiogetsgoosed'.
It's pretty clear to me that the county's culpability in this "misunderstanding" may be severely limited by the fact that they are on the record as saying that secured guns would be ok, and in at least one exchange, that secured means tethered with a cable.
The first 9th en banc panel also seems to have missed it altogether, or at least, they didn't understand that it was a significant shift in the county's previous position. (This can be heard in the 1st en banc oral argument recordings at about 56:00, IIRC)
It also seems obvious that at a minimum, the county allowed the mistaken impression to remain that they were sticking to their previous position of 'gun-less gun shows'. The plaintiffs may or may not have understood the county's new interpretation.
It's not over yet, but it promises to be a very strange end to a very long road.
Bottom line, they can have their gun shows, the scrutiny issue is unscathed, and hopefully the several cases being held for this somewhat bizzare outcome can finally move forward. I hope.
I can't figure out if this was an unintentional oversight by the plaintiffs, strategic 'ignorance' of the county's position, or just a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. It does seem to complicate things for Don Kilmer when it comes to getting fees.