View Single Post
Old April 6, 2012, 09:05 PM   #48
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
gc70, of the CA cases, there are two cases at the 9th that are on hold:

On 12-20-2011, (#9 - Filed May, 2009) Richards v. Prieto was stayed pending Nordyke. This case is fully briefed and awaits scheduling for Orals.

On the same day, (#13 - Filed Oct. 2009) Peruta v. County of San Diego was also stayed. This case is also fully briefed and awaits assignment of Orals.

Both cases have pretty much the same issues: Does the right to self defense include the right to carry outside the home. If so, then the discretionary "Good Cause" clause, violates the 2A. Getting that clause ruled as unconstitutional, would make CA a "Shall Issue" State, much like MD is now (barring the temp stay currently in effect).

There is no real order at this point, unless you believe the Circuit will pick [i]Peruta{/i] for orals first, as it hit the Circuit before Richards. That's kind of a crap shoot. Riachards is, IMO, the cleaner case and is behind Peruta only because they settled with Sacramento County (a now dismissed defendant) and that held up the works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gc70
Is there some aspect of Nordyke that is not present in the other cases? To my limited knowledge, the other cases would also recognize the 2A outside the home, so Nordyke is not special in that regard. Since Nordyke would put the 2A on government property, is the 9th trying to avoid a precedent that would puncture the presumptive legality of "longstanding prohibitions on ... firearms ... in sensitive places such as ... government buildings?"
First, the last panel said that unless there were "substantial effects" upon the 2A right, enhanced scrutiny did not apply. That could be used to uphold the discretionary nature of CA permits. Further, since the prior ruling also held that Alameda's ordinance did not "substantially effect" the ability of people to acquire firearms, there was no need to look into the "sensitive places" or "longstanding prohibitions" issues.

Despite the fact that the ordinance was enacted back in 1998, it was challenged almost immediately by the Nordykes. Therefore, the only "long standing" thing about this case is that gun shows were held at the fairgrounds for umpteen years (with no problems, mind you), before the ordinance. That also goes to negate the "sensitive places" issue.

What we are actually left with is commercial activity interference/discrimination by the County, that just happens to be a protected activity, via the 2A: A Government Ban on the right to acquire the implements of the right itself.

In light of the rulings in Ezell, Woollard, Weaver, Bateman and now Fletcher, in order to uphold what the panel said, would make this a cert worthy case (in essence, this would be a circuit split). They would stand a good chance of being reversed and I believe they know this. They would also be taking a chance of setting nationwide precedent with an opinion against them.

While it is still up in the air about any appeals with Bateman, I don't believe NC will appeal. Weaver will not. That case is pretty much settled law. MA might still pursue Fletcher, but I think they would be foolish (Judge Woodlock was pretty thorough here). We know MD is appealing Woollard, but I strongly doubt that they will get anywhere. Judge Legg's opinion was solid.
Al Norris is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02892 seconds with 8 queries