|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 22, 2009, 01:14 PM | #51 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: In the oak studded hills near Napa
Posts: 2,203
|
Quote:
I asked them why they were not reporting on an apparent victory for their cause. After all, the 9th circuit affirmed the lower court's summary judgement against the Nordykes.
__________________
grym |
|
April 22, 2009, 02:10 PM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
|
Quote:
So far, aside from (apparently) Lou Dobbs, the only other mainstream news source I'm seeing anything about this in is the San Francisco Chronicle. My other guess is something WildAlaska touched on, but only in passing...it's too academic. At this point, this decision has had basically zero impact. California residents may now challenge gun laws, but it's not like any of them are immediately impacted by this decision (the only specific gun law involved was upheld). Compare this to Heller, in which D.C.'s actual handgun ban was being immediately challenged. To some extent, as far as the average mainstream news consumer is concerned (again, the same consumers who don't know what incorporation means), this isn't news. The cases that this leads to will be news. |
|
April 22, 2009, 03:04 PM | #53 |
Junior member
Join Date: December 1, 2008
Posts: 320
|
Yep, it's binding in the 9th Circuit. Can be cited in other
Circuits, which they would take into account, but doesn't bind them. Note that "binding" is often more theory than fact, since there are ways to get around a binding decision (distinguish it -- facts in this case are somewhat different from facts in that case -- or sometimes outright ignore it, or call for en banc review by all the judges in the circuit and try to get them to overrule the prior decision). And a well-reasoned opinion from one circuit can carry weight in others. And a circuit split, where some circuits go one way and others go another, is a good basis for asking the Supreme Court to take it on and settle the issue. orchidhunter |
April 22, 2009, 11:34 PM | #54 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Too Academic?
Then explain to me all the post Heller analysis that explained how the case only affected D.C, even if it did foreclose the collective rights interpretation. Has everyone forgotten that? |
April 23, 2009, 12:23 AM | #55 |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Good point
WildmaybethemsmhopesthedecisonwillgoawayAlaska TM |
April 23, 2009, 02:03 AM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 18, 1999
Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California
Posts: 4,261
|
The San Fransisco Chronicle has a pretty straight shooting analysis.
__________________
Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation. Annual Member: Revolutionary War Veterans Association (Project Appleseed) and the Madison Society. |
April 23, 2009, 07:03 AM | #57 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 17, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,857
|
Quote:
__________________
"A human being is primarily a bag for putting food into; the other functions and faculties may be more godlike, but in point of time they come afterwards." -George Orwell |
|
April 23, 2009, 11:47 AM | #58 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
Last edited by maestro pistolero; April 23, 2009 at 08:04 PM. |
|
April 23, 2009, 11:56 AM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,647
|
Someone refresh my memory. Didn't the 2nd circuit take a different view?
__________________
USNRET '61-'81 |
April 23, 2009, 04:34 PM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: Lancaster Co, PA
Posts: 2,311
|
The 2nd Circuit had a numbskull (pun intended) who ran a pro se case (ALWAYS a mistake) challenging a NYC ban on nunchaku. It had little standing, poor arguement, and little hope for success. The Nordykes had considerable standing, a better arguement, and one of the best lawyers in the country representing them and a coalition of all the top 2A minds within several hundred miles AND Alan Gura working on it.
Also, the 9th had a few decisions on file that specifically hinged on the collective rights 2A view which Heller blew out of the water. All they had to do was rule that those decisions no longer were good because Heller said individual right. We got a GREAT judge on the opinion.
__________________
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus http://www.concealedcampus.org "You can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws--that's insane!" - Penn Jillette |
April 23, 2009, 05:37 PM | #61 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Anyone share my concern?
Despite all the zeal of the day, does anyone share my concern about this ruling emboldening local government to undermine the newly won incorporation with flimsy claims that nearly any public area may considered a "sensitive place" in the context of the Heller decision?
I am not at all convinced that we should let this stand. I will be very interested to learn the strategy of the Nordykes going forward. Obviously, any approach going forward should not endanger the incorporation, which would be hard to imagine, given the courts' broad reasoning behind incorporation. Last edited by maestro pistolero; April 23, 2009 at 05:59 PM. |
April 23, 2009, 07:25 PM | #62 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: In the oak studded hills near Napa
Posts: 2,203
|
Quote:
__________________
grym |
|
April 23, 2009, 07:57 PM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Schools and government buildings were the terms Scalia used, if I recall. This court extended that to a county fairground (building, I assume) which although technically a government building, is almost certainly not the type of 'sensitive place' the USSC majority was referring to.
Public housing is also a government building, but also a domicile. If 2A applies anywhere, it clearly applies in the home, whether government owned or not. Are we to believe that a county fairground building is a more 'sensitive place' than a government apartment building, sleeping babies and all? I'd like to see someone try to make that argument. Last edited by maestro pistolero; April 23, 2009 at 08:37 PM. |
April 23, 2009, 09:24 PM | #64 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
OTOH it's only a matter of time before another case emerges that addresses this issue head-on.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|
April 23, 2009, 09:37 PM | #65 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
But when the case started out, there was no Heller decision, and, of course, no incorporation. Now there's both. This case was about a gun show, but the ordinance challenged says no guns on any county property. That's a ban, in my opinion, because county property is everywhere. What's next, no guns on city property? And by the way, no guns on federal land either! The court seems to be contending that all county property is 'sensitive' in the sense that the Scalia meant it in Heller. It is overreaching, to say the least. Last edited by maestro pistolero; April 23, 2009 at 09:53 PM. |
|
April 24, 2009, 02:43 AM | #66 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 14, 2007
Location: Arkansuck...I dream of the day I leave here. Never to return.
Posts: 854
|
Quote:
If a large group of folks want to come together for a gun bazaar and a large(r) group want to attend the bazaar how is it that this is repugnant to the 2A. There will be lots of "bearing of arms". Last time I checked, this was perfectly legal. If you really want to get down and dirty about it...FFL's smack in the face of the 2A. A person spends private money on guns. He sells them for a profit. Where does the ATF fit in to this? Private property being transferred has no business in .fed hands. Fine...he has to pay taxes on his profits. Explain how any of the gun trade is more than an IRS issue...assuming you believe that the IRS is a good thing... |
|
April 26, 2009, 11:01 AM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
The 9th circuit opinion did comment that it was "odd" to consider a parking lot a "sensitive place" as Scalia used the term.
The Nordykes argue that the Ordinance is overbroad because it covers more than such sensitive places. They list the areas covered: “open space venues, such as County-owned parks, recreational areas, historic sites, parking lots of public buildings . . . and the County fairgrounds.” The only one of these that seems odd as a “sensitive place” is parking lots. It's not the only one that seems odd to me, and given the history presented at the case, it seems that a sure way to prevent any future shootings at the fairgrounds would be to hold a gun show there that never closes. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|