PDA

View Full Version : Nordyke is out!


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

elenius
04-20-2009, 10:01 AM
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf

Pvt. Cowboy
04-20-2009, 10:05 AM
Boned, it appears.

CCWFacts
04-20-2009, 10:06 AM
So what does it mean? It says that the Nordykes shouldn't have been able to amend their case, and therefore they don't need to rule based on the 2A, but they still think the 2A is incorporated? So the case is over and we don't get incorporation from it? Or? I don't get it.

And they cite Cruikshank like it's a reasonable decision!

At least they say that Hickman has "evaporated". That is good because that's the case that said, "you can't get a CCW based on the 2A", which opens that up to litigation again.

GM4spd
04-20-2009, 10:12 AM
Looks like a loser to me. The Incorporation part looks like a maybe but if you believe the Incorporation is going to result in a change of present CA guns laws I wouldn't bank on it. Pete

JDoe
04-20-2009, 10:13 AM
What does this mean on page 41? Is the 2nd incorporated or what? :confused:

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s
grant of summary judgment to the County on the Nordykes’
First Amendment and equal protection claims and, although
we conclude that the Second Amendment is indeed incorporated
against the states, we AFFIRM the district court’s
refusal to grant the Nordykes leave to amend their complaint
to add a Second Amendment claim in this case.

nat
04-20-2009, 10:14 AM
My first scroll through quickly..........it looks like we got incorporation?

adamsreeftank
04-20-2009, 10:15 AM
Looks to me like the Nordykes lost but the incorporation battle was won.

:confused:

mecam
04-20-2009, 10:15 AM
:shrug:

4508
NORDYKE v. KING

Nordykes have not argued that they could meet the exception’s
requirement that firearms be secured whenever an
authorized participant is not actually using them. No wonder.
They have admitted that the very nature of gun shows, in
which vendors show weapons to prospective buyers and
admirers, makes it impossible.
[22] We conclude that the Nordykes are not situated similarly
to the Scottish Games in that they cannot meet the safety
requirements of the exception. The district court was therefore
correct to award the County summary judgment on this claim
as well.
V
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s
grant of summary judgment to the County on the Nordykes’
First Amendment and equal protection claims and, although
we conclude that the Second Amendment is indeed incorporated
against the states, we AFFIRM the district court’s
refusal to grant the Nordykes leave to amend their complaint
to add a Second Amendment claim in this case.

AFFIRMED.

sorensen440
04-20-2009, 10:15 AM
Looks to me like the Nordykes lost but the incorporation battle was won.

:confused:
This is my understanding as well

tango-52
04-20-2009, 10:16 AM
A quick scan indicates that we do get incorporation, but that the Nordykes lose on procedural grounds.

MudCamper
04-20-2009, 10:17 AM
Well, it has these words in it,

We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments

Isn't that all we (big we, the people, not the Nordykes) need?

DRM6000
04-20-2009, 10:17 AM
where's gene or bill? this is all greek to me.

sorensen440
04-20-2009, 10:18 AM
Isn't that all we (big we, the people, not the Nordykes) need?
Yes I believe so

rtlltj
04-20-2009, 10:19 AM
I'll be waiting for Hoffmang to explain.

Pvt. Cowboy
04-20-2009, 10:19 AM
It reads as though the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Philadelphia Sixers lost their last game against the Phoenix Suns, but they have affirmed that basketballs are indeed roundish spherical-like objects.

KWA-S
04-20-2009, 10:19 AM
TLDR:
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s
grant of summary judgment to the County on the Nordykes’
First Amendment and equal protection claims and, although
we conclude that the Second Amendment is indeed incorporated
against the states, we AFFIRM the district court’s
refusal to grant the Nordykes leave to amend their complaint
to add a Second Amendment claim in this case.

So it looks like the Nordykes don't get Almeda gun shows, but the second amendment is incorporated. So, what happens now? I know its probably going to SCOTUS, but until then, the 2A is incorporated and we can challenge UOC (most likely), AWB (the one I'm interested in), and Safe School Zone/machine guns/high caps (hah, not even in your dreams)?

EDIT: 13 posts while I typed my comment. Seems like theres a few Calgunners F5ing the 2A forums at 10:30 each morning waiting for Nordyke. God we need a life.

EMT007
04-20-2009, 10:19 AM
Yes I believe so

:thumbsup: agreed - but lets get the lawyers to weigh in

glockk9mm
04-20-2009, 10:20 AM
Gene or Bill please explain to us

sorensen440
04-20-2009, 10:20 AM
:thumbsup: agreed - but lets get the lawyers to weigh in
Or even Gene or Bill
(I suspect they are talking with the lawyers instead of posting right now )

xxdabroxx
04-20-2009, 10:20 AM
Well, thus far looks like good news for calgunners. :thumbsup:

DRM6000
04-20-2009, 10:21 AM
Well, thus far looks like good news for calgunners. :thumbsup:

it's good news for ca gun owners period. :thumbsup:

ProlificARProspect
04-20-2009, 10:22 AM
waiting on the Calguns fondation to explain. It's Greek to me.

xLusi0n
04-20-2009, 10:22 AM
Isn't that better? So the County won't appeal?

tango-52
04-20-2009, 10:22 AM
Or even Gene or Bill
(I suspect they are talking with the lawyers instead of posting right now )

I would expect that there is a lot of thorough reading going on to figure out where we go next.

Santa Cruz Armory
04-20-2009, 10:23 AM
After the latest election and current administration, we need some good news to come our way.

sorensen440
04-20-2009, 10:23 AM
I would expect that there is a lot of thorough reading going on to figure out where we go next.
agreed
Every sentence in this thing will have potential effect on the next steps

yellowfin
04-20-2009, 10:23 AM
It really is disgusting that they uphold Cruikshank and Presser. What kind of scum do you have to be to like those cases?!? :mad:

ZRX61
04-20-2009, 10:24 AM
Was this the same thing that stopped gun shows at Antelope Valley Fairgrounds? There hasn't been one here for years....certainly not at the new fairgrounds...

nat
04-20-2009, 10:24 AM
Since Alameda won, can they challenge the incorporation ruling? Can the Nordykes refile their lawsuit?

KWA-S
04-20-2009, 10:25 AM
I would expect that there is a lot of thorough reading going on to figure out where we go next.

Course, I'm printing it out and reading the whole thing instead of paying attention to my chem lecture. :thumbsup: But I think this is a "fair" compromise... Alameda County gets to ban its gun shows, and we get our incorporation. I think it actually really leans in our favor, but in a way to not get punted to the supreme court.

My question is when do we lose our bullet buttons?

ilbob
04-20-2009, 10:25 AM
I was thinking about this. Since the county won, they can't appeal the decision. If the decision actually incorporates the 2A, that might well be a good thing.

tiki
04-20-2009, 10:25 AM
Yes, it appears that we have incorporation in the 9th, but the Nordykes lost their case.
My thinking, and I am certainly no expert in law, is that since the Nordykes lost but the court indicated incorporation, there isn't a reason for the county to apply for an en banc hearing or a SCOTUS appeal. Alergy medication may be getting to me but it sounds to me like the outcome we wanted for lawsuits is here and the challenges can begin since the court indicated that the 2nd is incorporated.
This may actually wind up becoming a better outcome for us since we don't have the mess of the county asking for a stay in the ruling until the case proceeds to en banc by the 9th or cert by SCOTUS.
I would guess that even if the Nordykes appeal, they wouldn't need to appeal the incorporation portion.
I am very optimistic on this, but of course, will wait to hear fromt those with more experience and legal background than me.

sorensen440
04-20-2009, 10:26 AM
I was thinking about this. Since the county won, they can't appeal the decision. If the decision actually incorporates the 2A, that might well be a good thing.
Hmm I didn't think about this

So this may actually be the best choice for gun owners

DRM6000
04-20-2009, 10:26 AM
i like the past paragraph (judge gould's concurrance)

yellowfin
04-20-2009, 10:27 AM
This is actually the best possible outcome. We get incorporation NOW and the other side can't appeal, as Tiki pointed out quicker than my browser could reload to post. ;)

DRM6000
04-20-2009, 10:28 AM
I was thinking about this. Since the county won, they can't appeal the decision. If the decision actually incorporates the 2A, that might well be a good thing.

if that's correct, that is the ideal outcome.

popeye4
04-20-2009, 10:29 AM
Isn't that better? So the County won't appeal?

It would seem the County won their portion of the case, and one doesn't appeal a victory. The 2nd amendment wasn't part of their case (so says the court in denying the Nordykes the ability to add the 2nd to their compliant), but in saying so, they perhaps acknowledged incorporation of the 2nd amendment. Could this be an un-appealable victory for 2nd amendment?

DRM6000
04-20-2009, 10:30 AM
as for the nordyke's loss, will incorporation in some way make it possible for them to bring about another type of suit someday?

popeye4
04-20-2009, 10:30 AM
Man, that's amazing how many of us came to the same conclusion simultaneously........:thumbsup:

tango-52
04-20-2009, 10:33 AM
if that's correct, that is the ideal outcome.

For us, but not the Nordykes. They took one for the team.

yellowfin
04-20-2009, 10:34 AM
as for the nordyke's loss, will incorporation in some way make it possible for them to bring about another type of suit someday? I'm sure we can set up a fund to compensate them for any losses, if necessary.

Matt C
04-20-2009, 10:34 AM
We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear
arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators
and lawmakers living during the first one hundred
years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature
of the right. It has long been regarded as the “true palladium
of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their
independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a
recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later.
The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our
birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental,
that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception
of ordered liberty that we have inherited.17 We are
therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and
applies it against the states and local governments.

This is a winner folks.

DRM6000
04-20-2009, 10:35 AM
For us, but not the Nordykes. They took one for the team.


i concur. it's great if one looks at the big picture. hopefully things will change in our favor (gun owners) and the nordykes will be able to fight on different grounds.

EBR Works
04-20-2009, 10:37 AM
This is a winner folks.

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/62/040_FP0596%7EYeah-Baby-Austin-Powers-Posters.jpg

MudCamper
04-20-2009, 10:37 AM
For us, but not the Nordykes. They took one for the team.

Well put.

st.clouds
04-20-2009, 10:38 AM
:eek: WOooohooooo!!! :43:

This is totally awesome. Glad to hear some good new at last after a torrent of very dissapointing media news and commentaries posted here!

:thumbsup:

EDIT: Gah... so it's not a complete victory, nm just read the rest of the posts :( sucks for the Nordykes.

KWA-S
04-20-2009, 10:39 AM
Oh, I just noticed, its incorporated against state and LOCAL governments. DOUBLE WIN. Hutchens, here we come.:43:

sorensen440
04-20-2009, 10:40 AM
For us, but not the Nordykes. They took one for the team.
This is true
we now just need to find them a location thats not on county owned property

anyone own a big empty warehouse ?

trashman
04-20-2009, 10:40 AM
Reading the opinion now...trying to multitask in our weekly management meeting...

--Neill

ETA: if I'm reading this right, the Court threw the Nordykes under the bus to keep Alameda from appealing the result so to preserve incorporation. This looks awfully close to a best case outcome...

ETA2: David Hardy has this analysis (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/04/nordyke_v_king_2.php):

My read on strategic posture:
1) This means plaintiffs, the good guys, are the ones who can petition the Supreme Court for cert.. They may have won on incorporation, but they "lost" on the appeal overall, and thus are the ones who can appeal further. This is good for them. Defendants are not in control, cannot move for rehearing en banc, or decline to file for cert..
2) It may however make the case less cert-worthy, a little less appealing to the Supreme Court. Not quite so clean an issue, need to reach reasonable regulation which the Court may be unready to do.

ilbob
04-20-2009, 10:42 AM
For us, but not the Nordykes. They took one for the team.

Maybe. Its been a long time since they had a show at the fairgrounds. Trying to restart that kind of commerical venture is not real easy.

DRM6000
04-20-2009, 10:44 AM
heys mods, can we get a sticky? :)

sorensen440
04-20-2009, 10:44 AM
Maybe. Its been a long time since they had a show at the fairgrounds. Trying to restart that kind of commerical venture is not real easy.
Not as high profile a case as this has been
I suspect they would have record attendance the first time back in Alameda county

yellowfin
04-20-2009, 10:45 AM
Oh, I just noticed, its incorporated against state and LOCAL governments. DOUBLE WIN. Hutchens, here we come.:43: Indeed. Hickman was directly addressed and with that one voided we have the green light to commence as many CCW lawsuits as possible, particularly against Hutchens, Baca, Smith, Hennessey, and their like. There is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever for wiggle room: discriminatory issue's justification is STONE COLD DEAD. That in itself is enough to break the dam.

Gentlemen, start your engines!

Librarian
04-20-2009, 10:45 AM
For incorporation, here's the critical sequence, I think: page 9 [3] The second obstacle facing the Nordykes is incorpora-
tion. That is, we must decide whether the Second Amendment
applies to the states through the Fourteenth, a question that
Heller explicitly left open. See 128 S. Ct. at 2813 n.23.
Finally, even if the Fourteenth Amendment does incorporate
the Second against the states, we must determine whether it
actually invalidates the Ordinance.
The Court needs to settle this in order to reach its decision on the Nordyke's suit, so this discussion will not be dicta.

Then 20 pages of analysis, in which they throw Hickman v Block and Fresno Rifle under the bus, to page 29 12] We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear
arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of com-
mentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred
years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature
of the right. It has long been regarded as the “true palladium
of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their
independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a
recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later.
The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our
birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fun-
damental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American concep-
tion of ordered liberty that we have inherited.17 We are
therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Four-
teenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and
applies it against the states and local governments.18
However, regarding this ordinance and the Nordyke's ability to hold gunshows on county property, [15] To summarize: the Ordinance does not meaningfully
impede the ability of individuals to defend themselves in their
homes with usable firearms, the core of the right as Heller
analyzed it. The Ordinance falls on the lawful side of the division, familiar from other areas of substantive due process doc-
trine, between unconstitutional interference with individual
rights and permissible government nonfacilitation of their
exercise. Finally, prohibiting firearm possession on municipal
property fits within the exception from the Second Amend-
ment for “sensitive places” that Heller recognized. These con-
siderations compel us to conclude that the Second
Amendment does not invalidate the specific Ordinance before
us. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying the Nordykes leave to amend their complaint to add
a Second Amendment claim that would have been futile.

Fate
04-20-2009, 10:45 AM
This indeed seems to be the BEST possible outcome for the RKBA in CA. Woooooooooooohoooooooo!

Check out my new sig!

"We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments." Nordyke v. King 4/20/09

CCWFacts
04-20-2009, 10:47 AM
Indeed. Hickman was DIRECTLY addressed, and with that one voided, we have the green light to commence as many CCW lawsuits as possible, particularly against Hutchens, Baca, Smith, Hennessey, and their like. That in itself is going to be HUGE.

Yes. The Hickman case said, "we don't need to give you a CCW because the 2A doesn't affect local gov'ts". In this decision, the 9th Circuit says, "Hickman has evaporated". Someone open a window!

I guess the fact that the county "won" means they can't appeal, can't ask for an en banc hearing even, meaning we can start filing CCW lawsuits in the immediate future?

Roadrunner
04-20-2009, 10:49 AM
What about the Nordykes just moving to where the Modesto gun show (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=63487) has been held. I believe it's only 60-70 away from Alameda.

Aegis
04-20-2009, 10:51 AM
I remember reading on this forum that Jerry Brown agreed with Heller and will go to bat for the gun owners in California when we get incorporation. It appears he now has his chance.

paintballergb
04-20-2009, 10:51 AM
What about the Nordykes just moving to where the Modesto gun show (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=63487) has been held. I believe it's only 60-70 away from Alameda.

:hide:

sorensen440
04-20-2009, 10:53 AM
What about the Nordykes just moving to where the Modesto gun show (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=63487) has been held. I believe it's only 60-70 away from Alameda.
I was thinking the hangars out at Alameda point would be a nice alternate location

Roadrunner
04-20-2009, 10:53 AM
:hide:

I'm sorry, did I say something wrong?:confused:

PatriotnMore
04-20-2009, 10:53 AM
This: [15] To summarize: the Ordinance does not meaningfully
impede the ability of individuals to defend themselves in their
homes with usable firearms, the core of the right as Heller
analyzed it. makes the Heller decision sound like a right to 2A protection only in the home, am I mis-reading the interpretation by our 9th?

If so, where in Heller was it proclaimed, right to 2A in the home only?

Aegis
04-20-2009, 10:53 AM
How does this impact AB357? I hope the committee listening to the AB357 arguments tomorrow are aware of this ruling.

dfletcher
04-20-2009, 10:53 AM
In the simplest terms, isn't the court basically saying a gun show isn't the best arena to determine whether or not a person is exercising their 2nd Amendment right, but the right exists & the states must recognize it?

6172crew
04-20-2009, 10:53 AM
heys mods, can we get a sticky? :)

Im going to bet it stays up top without a sticky.:)

Sean Vax
04-20-2009, 10:54 AM
Don't laugh when I ask this question. Trying to understand all of the 2A politics and laws stuff is pretty new and confusing. What does Incorporation regarding the 2A mean?

Does it mean that California laws don't apply? Does is just benefit CCW applicants?

Librarian
04-20-2009, 10:54 AM
Real Lawyers looking at Nordyke at Volokh - http://volokh.powerblogs.com

Don't laugh when I ask this question. Trying to understand all of the 2A politics and laws stuff is pretty new and confusing. What does Incorporation regarding the 2A mean?

Does it mean that California laws don't apply? Does is just benefit CCW applicants?


See wikipedia for the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

As to the rest, we'll see. Nothing automatic.

Roadrunner
04-20-2009, 10:56 AM
I was thinking the hangars out at Alameda point would be a nice alternate location

I think anything that will help the Nordykes and symbolically flip off the Alameda County Board of Supervisors is a good thing. So, if these hangars are smack dab in the middle of Alameda, I would support it. I just hate to see good people get the shaft by morons.

jmlivingston
04-20-2009, 10:58 AM
Im going to bet it stays up top without a sticky.:)

I'm sure that's right, but it's stuck anyway! :43:

DRM6000
04-20-2009, 11:00 AM
Im going to bet it stays up top without a sticky.:)


yeah i know, but i thought that absolutely everybody would realize the importance if it was stickied. :) just trying to be helpful.

Soldier415
04-20-2009, 11:00 AM
This is a winner folks.
Yes, that right there is chock full of win.

Incidentally, I just woke everyone in my hooch up by yelling "**** YEAH!!!!!!" very loudly :D

BroncoBob
04-20-2009, 11:01 AM
Very exciting times!!!!!

sorensen440
04-20-2009, 11:01 AM
Yes, that right there is chock full of win.

Incidentally, I just woke everyone in my hooch up by yelling "**** YEAH!!!!!!" very loudly :D
I went outside and emptied my revolver into the hill
(And I am in Alameda county :D )

BroncoBob
04-20-2009, 11:03 AM
I went outside and emptied my revolver into the hill
(And I am in Alameda county :D )


Sometimes I envey your location......

yellowfin
04-20-2009, 11:04 AM
This: [15] To summarize: the Ordinance does not meaningfully
impede the ability of individuals to defend themselves in their
homes with usable firearms, the core of the right as Heller
analyzed it. makes the Heller decision sound like a right to 2A protection only in the home, am I mis-reading the interpretation by our 9th?

If so, where in Heller was it proclaimed, right to 2A in the home only?

Page 8 & 9:
To reach this argument on the merits, we must first
decide whether Heller abrogated Hickman. It did. Hickman
rested on our conclusion that the Second Amendment protects
only a collective right; Heller squarely overruled such conclu-
sion. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2799 (“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second
Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear
arms.”). Thus the basis for Hickman’s holding has evaporated,
and the opinion is clearly irreconcilable with Heller. In such
circumstances, we consider our prior decision abrogated by
higher authority.4 See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899-
900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

Hickman v Block STONE DEAD by direct action, no further room to argue. CCW discriminatory issue now no longer has court backing, and is declared irreconcilable with Heller.

PatriotnMore
04-20-2009, 11:04 AM
Judge Gould: "Third, while the Second Amendment thus stands as a protection against both external threat and internal tyranny, the recognition of the individual’s right in the Second Amendment, and its incorporation by the Due Process Clause against the states, is not inconsistent with the reasonable regulation of weaponry. All weapons are not “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment, so, for example, no individual could sensibly argue that the Second Amendment gives them a right to have nuclear weapons or chemical weapons in their home for self-defense. Also, important governmental interests will justify reasonable regulation of rifles and handguns, and the problem for our courts will be to define, in the context of particular regulation by the states and municipalities, what is reasonable and permissible and what is unreasonable and offensive to the Second Amendment."

Trouble ahead, I fear how they may rule on this. They can affirm the 2nd, and cut us off at the feet with a draconian ruling.

GenLee
04-20-2009, 11:05 AM
Bill and Gene please tell this laymen (me) that this is as good a news as I believe it to be.........Please.

paintballergb
04-20-2009, 11:05 AM
I'm sorry, did I say something wrong?:confused:

No. I meant they have to hide.

Soldier415
04-20-2009, 11:06 AM
I went outside and emptied my revolver into the hill
(And I am in Alameda county :D )
I'd go outside and empty my M4 into the ground...but I have the feeling people with more rank than me would not share my enthusiasm.

tgriffin
04-20-2009, 11:06 AM
Im going to bet it stays up top without a sticky.:)

I've got a feeling you are right.

Not to just parrot what everyone else has said, but this really does seem like the best plausible outcome we could hope for. I'm sure the Right People are in a buzz at the moment, but I certainly cant wait to read what Gene and Bill have to say when they get a moment.

Matt C
04-20-2009, 11:11 AM
Celebration Party at my house tonight:http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=175327

bwiese
04-20-2009, 11:11 AM
I'm late to the party, was returning the rental car and dealing with work issues. I still have to go thru it completely but it's a bell-ringer.

And what an excellent way to wake up the day after the Big Reno Show!

The result is a tad sideways (at least for the Nordykes) and may have
been a less probable outcome than we predicted - but this result may well have helped us.


... Hickman dead,
... Fresno Rifle dead,
...We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear
arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators
and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic
all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been
regarded as the “true palladium of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to
assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought
to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century
later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our
birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed
fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception
of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded
that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates
the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments."The Second Amendment is ALIVE in California.

Start the bulldozers gentlmen, we have some dismantlement work ahead of us.

Note that the opposition (Alameda) CANNOT appeal - they "won"; they cannot do en banc, etc.

*WE* can appeal, because "we lost" (a la Nordkyes) - but even thru course of appeals, INCORPORATION OF THE 2nd STILL STANDS, regardless of the fate of the Nordyke gunshow.

KWA-S
04-20-2009, 11:12 AM
Yes, that right there is chock full of win.

Incidentally, I just woke everyone in my hooch up by yelling "**** YEAH!!!!!!" very loudly :D

Heh, my heart just skipped a few beats. But now I'm going to run around screaming "**** YEAH!" and explaining to everyone I see the Nordyke decision, and pretty much everything that has to do with it, until they start looking at me weird and backing away slowly. (Sometimes (EDIT: Always), I hate being the only gun enthusiast i know IRL)

Henry Bowman
04-20-2009, 11:12 AM
If so, where in Heller was it proclaimed, right to 2A in the home only? Technically, that was the only issue considered by SCOTUS in the Heller case.

xxdabroxx
04-20-2009, 11:14 AM
How pissed off is Team Billy Jack going to be when they have no more business? Well I guess they will be quite busy for a while, but they have always seems to take the stance that they did not want shall issue.

yellowfin
04-20-2009, 11:14 AM
Bill and Gene please tell this laymen (me) that this is as good a news as I believe it to be.........Please. They're busy picking up the kegs.

Kestryll
04-20-2009, 11:15 AM
Bill and Gene please tell this laymen (me) that this is as good a news as I believe it to be.........Please.

Right now I would guess Gene, Bill, Ben and the rest of the Board are juggling multiple phonecalls and emails with the other Pro-2A groups and Attorneys trying to both fully understand the ruling to make sure there are no hidden pitfalls and planning the next moves. ;)

Patience everyone, this looks like a serious win but one with casualties (the Nordyke's).

GrayWolf09
04-20-2009, 11:15 AM
Judge Gould: "Third, while the Second Amendment thus stands as a protection against both external threat and internal tyranny, the recognition of the individual’s right in the Second Amendment, and its incorporation by the Due Process Clause against the states, is not inconsistent with the reasonable regulation of weaponry. All weapons are not “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment, so, for example, no individual could sensibly argue that the Second Amendment gives them a right to have nuclear weapons or chemical weapons in their home for self-defense. Also, important governmental interests will justify reasonable regulation of rifles and handguns, and the problem for our courts will be to define, in the context of particular regulation by the states and municipalities, what is reasonable and permissible and what is unreasonable and offensive to the Second Amendment."

Trouble ahead, I fear how they may rule on this. They can affirm the 2nd, and cut us off at the feet with a draconian ruling.

Yeah, but what I like about Gould's concurring opinion is that he does not just define 2A rights as being principally about self and home defense as the majority does but includes defense against foreign invaders and even against a tyrannical government. You may be able to ban AR's or AK's as not being necessary for home or self defense but it is a much tougher argument when the RKBA is to defend against foreign invaders or even your own government.:83:

mecam
04-20-2009, 11:15 AM
The Second Amendment is ALIVE in California.

Start the bulldozers gentlmen, we have some dismantlement work ahead of us.


Can I submit an AW application and sue if I get declined? :D

otteray
04-20-2009, 11:17 AM
Bill and Gene are either celebrating with quality Scotch (wait it's morning - make that Champagne Mimosas) and cigars; or else maybe in a huddle for the next game play; if what happened is not as good and wonderful as it seems...
In any case, I'm putting my USA Flag up on my porch, with high hopes!:thumbsup::79:

Edit :
I just saw Bill's post!
Some good subject material for Bill's next week's speaking engagement in Santa Cruz, I'd say.

yellowfin
04-20-2009, 11:19 AM
How pissed off is Team Billy Jack going to be when they have no more business? Well I guess they will be quite busy for a while, but they have always seems to take the stance that they did not want shall issue. There will be plenty of gun laws for them to challenge, they'll just have to work on the other 16,999 for a change.

tiki
04-20-2009, 11:19 AM
Can I submit an AW application and sue if I get declined? :D

Its been done.

bulgron
04-20-2009, 11:19 AM
I'm excited that the 2A is incorporated, but I'm very troubled that the court seems hung up on the idea that we only have a right to arms for self-defense in our homes. If we can't move recognition of the right past our front door, then OC and CCW will be dead and buried in this state.

I'd have been a lot happier if the court had limited it's opinion to saying that the Alameda ordinances don't infringe on the right to self-defense (and leave the constraint in the home out of it). As it is, I fear we'll have to take a trip all the way back to SCOTUS in order to convince lower courts that the right to arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense exists generally throughout society, and not just specifically in our homes.

FS00008
04-20-2009, 11:20 AM
OMG!!!!!! OMG!!!! OMG!!!! OMG!!!!



So I wonder if this means that the Nordykes can come back around in a few years after we have a few more wins under our belt... :-P

sharpie613
04-20-2009, 11:20 AM
I call dibs on the tears of Allison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owzhYNcd4OM

FreshTapCoke
04-20-2009, 11:21 AM
I was thinking about this. Since the county won, they can't appeal the decision. If the decision actually incorporates the 2A, that might well be a good thing.

This was my immediate though. I hope it holds true.

yellowfin
04-20-2009, 11:21 AM
I'm excited that the 2A is incorporated, but I'm very troubled that the court seems hung up on the idea that we only have a right to arms for self-defense in our homes. If we can't move recognition of the right past our front door, then OC and CCW will be dead and buried in this state.

I'd have been a lot happier if the court had limited it's opinion to saying that the Alameda ordinances don't infringe on the right to self-defense (and leave the constraint in the home out of it). As it is, I fear we'll have to take a trip all the way back to SCOTUS in order to convince lower courts that the right to arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense exists generally throughout society, and not just specifically in our homes.
Did you notice they addressed Hickman on its own before getting to anything else?

PatriotnMore
04-20-2009, 11:22 AM
Yeah, but what I like about Gould's concurring opinion is that he does not just define 2A rights as being principally about self and home defense as the majority does but includes defense against foreign invaders and even against a tyrannical government. You may be able to ban AR's or AK's as not being necessary for home or self defense but it is a much tougher argument when the RKBA is to defend against foreign invaders or even your own government.:83:


Excellent point, I sometimes see the glass half empty on 2A issues. I sometimes feel like the abused child which reels from the hand, even tho its there to help.

Roadrunner
04-20-2009, 11:22 AM
Page 8 & 9:


Hickman v Block STONE DEAD by direct action, no further room to argue. CCW discriminatory issue now no longer has court backing, and is declared irreconcilable with Heller.

So what does this mean in the scheme of things. Can they still regulate CCW? Does a person still need a license to carry? And what about loaded open carry?

PatriotnMore
04-20-2009, 11:24 AM
I'm excited that the 2A is incorporated, but I'm very troubled that the court seems hung up on the idea that we only have a right to arms for self-defense in our homes. If we can't move recognition of the right past our front door, then OC and CCW will be dead and buried in this state.

I'd have been a lot happier if the court had limited it's opinion to saying that the Alameda ordinances don't infringe on the right to self-defense (and leave the constraint in the home out of it). As it is, I fear we'll have to take a trip all the way back to SCOTUS in order to convince lower courts that the right to arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense exists generally throughout society, and not just specifically in our homes.

I am glad someone else is addressing a concern here on that exact issue. Heller was quoted as the definer in the issue of home defense only, and I did not read that in Heller.

DLaw
04-20-2009, 11:25 AM
waiting on the Calguns fondation to explain. It's Greek to me.

I'm Greek and I don't even understand it fully..

Aegis
04-20-2009, 11:25 AM
I'm excited that the 2A is incorporated, but I'm very troubled that the court seems hung up on the idea that we only have a right to arms for self-defense in our homes. If we can't move recognition of the right past our front door, then OC and CCW will be dead and buried in this state.

I'd have been a lot happier if the court had limited it's opinion to saying that the Alameda ordinances don't infringe on the right to self-defense (and leave the constraint in the home out of it). As it is, I fear we'll have to take a trip all the way back to SCOTUS in order to convince lower courts that the right to arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense exists generally throughout society, and not just specifically in our homes.

From memory, I believe language in Heller explains that the RKBA is applicable in cases of confrontation, thus in my opinion is not just applicable at home. The 2A appears to be binding now, and does not say that it is only valid at home. The 1A is not only valid in your home, why should the 2A be?

tiki
04-20-2009, 11:26 AM
I'm excited that the 2A is incorporated, but I'm very troubled that the court seems hung up on the idea that we only have a right to arms for self-defense in our homes. If we can't move recognition of the right past our front door, then OC and CCW will be dead and buried in this state.

I'd have been a lot happier if the court had limited it's opinion to saying that the Alameda ordinances don't infringe on the right to self-defense (and leave the constraint in the home out of it). As it is, I fear we'll have to take a trip all the way back to SCOTUS in order to convince lower courts that the right to arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense exists generally throughout society, and not just specifically in our homes.

Thats not really an issue. Heller was specifically about guns in the home. So, that's what the court was referring to. Heller was not a limitation on your right to keep and bear arms only in your home; that was what the case was about. The key part is that the SCOTUS mentioned in the ruling that keeping and bearing arms went together. Essentially, it is ridiculous for the state to assert that the 2nd Amendment only allows you to protect yourself in your home.

gn3hz3ku1*
04-20-2009, 11:26 AM
So what does this mean in the scheme of things. Can they still regulate CCW? Does a person still need a license to carry? And what about loaded open carry?

i think this might mean... gun prices are not dropping in CA like i hoped it would :eek:

tiki
04-20-2009, 11:26 AM
From memory, I believe language in Heller explains that the RKBA is applicable in cases of confrontation, thus in my opinion is not just applicable at home. The 2A appears to be binding now, and does not say that it is only valid at home. The 1A is not only valid in your home, why should the 2A be?

Correct.

RomanDad
04-20-2009, 11:27 AM
WOOOOOOOHOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! :hurray::jump::Ivan:

RomanDad
04-20-2009, 11:28 AM
Did you notice they addressed Hickman on its own before getting to anything else?

CCW BABY!!!!!

pullnshoot25
04-20-2009, 11:29 AM
I am seriously about to cry right now, both for incorporation and for the Nordykes. However, I am hopeful that the Nordykes can still kick some *** later on on different grounds!

I just texted a bunch of people including my brother, who is down in Ecuador right now. This is going to be FARKING AWESOME, I can hardly stand it! I am so happy right now that I can hardly contain myself.

WOOOOOO HOOOO!

yellowfin
04-20-2009, 11:30 AM
So what does this mean in the scheme of things. Can they still regulate CCW? Does a person still need a license to carry? And what about loaded open carry? It means they can't deny you a CCW anymore and get away with it in court. No more thugocracy by sheriffs.

tiki
04-20-2009, 11:31 AM
I think i'm going to go pick up my CCW application today. :)

Good Cause Statement: 2nd F-ing Amendment, biatches.

FreshTapCoke
04-20-2009, 11:31 AM
Purpose Donation
amount Total
CGN Foundation - Offensive legal activism

Reference: post-heller
$50.00 $50.00



Come on guys, pile it on them!

swaits
04-20-2009, 11:34 AM
Discussion here in case anyone's interested: http://www.tinychat.com/znpnz

Roadrunner
04-20-2009, 11:34 AM
It means they can't deny you a CCW anymore and get away with it in court. No more thugocracy by sheriffs.

Cool! What about the firearms roster and Roberti-Roos? Since most of those firearms are commonly used nationwide, how does that settle with this. And what about Rock and Roll?

TonyM
04-20-2009, 11:35 AM
Discussion here in case anyone's interested: http://www.tinychat.com/znpnz


Better yet: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/javachat.php

hoffmang
04-20-2009, 11:36 AM
THE SECOND AMENDMENT WON TODAY!

My phone is ringing off the hook and we're starting to try to pull together what to do tonight.

Here is the situation:

1. The Second Amendment applies to all states, counties and cities in the 9th Circuit including California.

2. We "lost." It sucks for Don and the Nordykes in the short term. However! We control the appeals process! We get to choose to petition for Cert with SCOTUS. It's too soon to have a prediction on what happens but I can tell you this. We don't have to worry about the antis trying to stall the application of an Incorporated Fundamental Right To Keep and Bear Arms!

Please only unloaded open carry in groups. Let's bring these challenges in the right order.

Second order immediate effects:

1. I'll be making sure OAL is aware of this on the petitions we have pending there.

2. Most every anti-gun bill in Sacramento now faces real constitutional arguments against it for the first time in 20 years. Think about writing letters again on these issues!

PARTY! Just please don't drink and drive tonight!

-Gene

CitaDeL
04-20-2009, 11:37 AM
I recieved word about the ruling by telephone about half an hour ago. And its now sinking in.

While the Nordykes did take one for the team as was mentioned pages back, this marks the commencement of a new era in California. It is now time to go to work- get your hard hat out start chipping away at the laws that have inhibited our 2A.


:gunsmilie::79::gunsmilie:

DLaw
04-20-2009, 11:37 AM
Its been done.


A little info please...

CCWFacts
04-20-2009, 11:37 AM
And this isn't just for us. As bad as our CCW situation is, it's even worse in Hawaii, Guam and Saipan, and this ruling will let them have a shot in Federal court on those issues. Cool! I get to carry next time I visit Hawaii!

ivanimal
04-20-2009, 11:39 AM
After speaking with Bill and affirming my joyous assumptions of what I was reading..................WWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTT TTTT!

A big thanks to the Nordyke's, may there be a win somewhere in your future. You make us all proud to be associated with you.

sorensen440
04-20-2009, 11:39 AM
Please only unloaded open carry in groups. Let's bring these challenges in the right order.


So does this mean you think those of use who were waiting should now go for it ?

Santa Cruz Armory
04-20-2009, 11:39 AM
I just saw Bill's post!
Some good subject material for Bill's next week's speaking engagement in Santa Cruz, I'd say.

Where is he speaking in Santa Cruz? is he gonna be at the club meeting?

lazyworm
04-20-2009, 11:40 AM
A little info please...

Here -- http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/AW_Permit_Denial/

xxdabroxx
04-20-2009, 11:40 AM
So does this mean you think those of use who were waiting should now go for it ?

From Gene's keyboard to your eyes!

ivanimal
04-20-2009, 11:42 AM
THE SECOND AMENDMENT WON TODAY!

My phone is ringing off the hook and we're starting to try to pull together what to do tonight.

Here is the situation:

1. The Second Amendment applies to all states, counties and cities in the 9th Circuit including California.

2. We "lost." It sucks for Don and the Nordykes in the short term. However! We control the appeals process! We get to choose to petition for Cert with SCOTUS. It's too soon to have a prediction on what happens but I can tell you this. We don't have to worry about the antis trying to stall the application of an Incorporated Fundamental Right To Keep and Bear Arms!

Please only unloaded open carry in groups. Let's bring these challenges in the right order.

Second order immediate effects:

1. I'll be making sure OAL is aware of this on the petitions we have pending there.

2. Most every anti-gun bill in Sacramento now faces real constitutional arguments against it for the first time in 20 years. Think about writing letters again on these issues!

PARTY! Just please don't drink and drive tonight!

-Gene

I say we have an impromptu dinner somewhere.

Any suggestions? I will start a new thread for this. I will post a link soon.

Macadelic4
04-20-2009, 11:42 AM
Toasting in an epic bread!

Will be popping the Martinelli's at my place...

RRangel
04-20-2009, 11:43 AM
Great news for the incorporation issue. The plaintiffs got the short end of the deal, but this will change our state's gun laws for the better. The collective right argument is dead. Although the circuit allows the restriction of guns on Alameda County property, they cite Heller in their decision which rejected the prohibition of a whole class of firearms "the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of 'arms' that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose". What other "class of arms" are being prohibited, especially in California?

tiki
04-20-2009, 11:43 AM
A little info please...

Our esteemed group of legal experts here have already moved and applied for an assault weapon permit and were denied. That denial will be grounds for a lawsuit. I believe they will bring the suit shortly. We need to let the Cal Guns Foundation drive the lawsuits so that they are coordinated, planned, funded and represented by the correct people. This will ensure the best outcome for us.

professorhard
04-20-2009, 11:43 AM
I'll drink a beer to this

trilogy
04-20-2009, 11:44 AM
Where is he speaking in Santa Cruz? is he gonna be at the club meeting?

+1 for info on this.

--Matt

Sutcliffe
04-20-2009, 11:45 AM
Still sucks that the council for Alameda got away with telling the court, and the rest of the country, that Alameda wasn't banning gunshows from the premises. Just guns. I can't believe that smug SOB can chalk up a win after being laughed at in court for being a complete and total jackass.

wildhawker
04-20-2009, 11:45 AM
I say we have an impromptu dinner somewhere.

Any suggestions? I will start a new thread for this. I will post a link soon.

You say when and where!

Roadrunner
04-20-2009, 11:46 AM
It seems like a target rich environment for our side now. I'm glad I'm not making the decision as to what to go after next.

So, what is next? CCW, LOC, 626.9, AW's, roster? It's like a smorgasbord of laws to crush out of existence.

MrSigmaDOT40
04-20-2009, 11:48 AM
I'm late to the party, was returning the rental car and dealing with work issues. I still have to go thru it completely but it's a bell-ringer.

And what an excellent way to wake up the day after the Big Reno Show!

The result is a tad sideways (at least for the Nordykes) and may have
been a less probable outcome than we predicted - but this result may well have helped us.


... Hickman dead,
... Fresno Rifle dead,
...We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear
arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators
and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic
all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been
regarded as the “true palladium of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to
assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought
to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century
later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our
birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed
fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception
of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded
that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates
the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments."The Second Amendment is ALIVE in California.

Start the bulldozers gentlmen, we have some dismantlement work ahead of us.

Note that the opposition (Alameda) CANNOT appeal - they "won"; they cannot do en banc, etc.

*WE* can appeal, because "we lost" (a la Nordkyes) - but even thru course of appeals, INCORPORATION OF THE 2nd STILL STANDS, regardless of the fate of the Nordyke gunshow.




:79::party::hurray::jump:

xxdabroxx
04-20-2009, 11:49 AM
I think CCW is high up, i would rather have that than LOC.

yellowfin
04-20-2009, 11:50 AM
It seems like a target rich environment for our side now. I'm glad I'm not making the decision as to what to go after next.

So, what is next? CCW, LOC, 626.9, AW's, roster? It's like a smorgasbord of laws to crush out of existence. With Hickman not only effectively dead but EXPLICITLY BY RULING dead, CCW is the clear front runner. LOC will need a case or two.

NorCal MedTac
04-20-2009, 11:50 AM
Where is he speaking in Santa Cruz? is he gonna be at the club meeting?

I heard it would be the meeting on the 28th brother. See ya there. BTW how hot is it in the valley right now, christ I'm burning up in Seacliff.

MudCamper
04-20-2009, 11:51 AM
So does this mean you think those of use who were waiting should now go for it ?

I think he's just saying that those who are chompin' at the bit to OC should still exercise some caution.

Roadrunner
04-20-2009, 11:51 AM
Still sucks that the council for Alameda got away with telling the court, and the rest of the country, that Alameda wasn't banning gunshows from the premises. Just guns. I can't believe that smug SOB can chalk up a win after being laughed at in court for being a complete and total jackass.

I'm just wondering how foolish the BOS feels about now. After all, they may have won the battle but lost the war for all antigunners in the 9th district, which is by the way the biggest circuit in the federal court system.

Joe
04-20-2009, 11:52 AM
:79::party::hurray::jump:

x2 :D :D

Futurecollector
04-20-2009, 11:54 AM
Sweet!!!! Im excited so see what you guys should have comming out for us next!!!! Keep it up!!!

peepshowal
04-20-2009, 11:55 AM
OMG!!! A new era in California begins!!!:jump:



First toast tonight is to the Nordykes!

sfpcservice
04-20-2009, 11:55 AM
I'm speechless, which is probably a good thing!

:gunsmilie::Ivan:

Canute
04-20-2009, 11:56 AM
I want my CCW! Modest donation made to CalGuns.

Monte
04-20-2009, 12:00 PM
Amazing news. I was a little scared when I read the first few replies in this thread saying that it was a loss. I'm so freaking relieved it went well for us. I just hope the Nordykes are able to come out ahead on an appeal.

I can't wait to see what happens next!

redbull addict
04-20-2009, 12:00 PM
Woo Hoo!!! Great news!

Someone put a link where we can donate towards the fund. It should be on every page of this thread!

ivanimal
04-20-2009, 12:00 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=175346

Joe
04-20-2009, 12:02 PM
I want my CCW! Modest donation made to CalGuns.

this would be awesome

Santa Cruz Armory
04-20-2009, 12:03 PM
Where is he speaking in Santa Cruz? is he gonna be at the club meeting?

I heard it would be the meeting on the 28th brother. See ya there. BTW how hot is it in the valley right now, christ I'm burning up in Seacliff.



http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e346/BLFD1/temp4-20-09.jpg

hoffmang
04-20-2009, 12:04 PM
I've spoken to Don Kilmer. Due to him being in San Jose, we'll probably pull something together between Santa Clara and San Carlos at the extreme ends.

-Gene

bulgron
04-20-2009, 12:04 PM
Thats not really an issue. Heller was specifically about guns in the home. So, that's what the court was referring to. Heller was not a limitation on your right to keep and bear arms only in your home; that was what the case was about. The key part is that the SCOTUS mentioned in the ruling that keeping and bearing arms went together. Essentially, it is ridiculous for the state to assert that the 2nd Amendment only allows you to protect yourself in your home.

Look, I'm being a glass-half-full kind of a guy right now. Don't get me wrong, I'm jazzed that the 2A is incorporated and that Hickman is dead.

But.

It looks to me like the courts are engaging in the kind of logic drift that resulted after Miller. Miller, as most of you should know, really didn't decide anything. Yet based on Miller most of the Federal court system drifted into a wide-spread acceptance of the 2A as a collective right, and not an individual right. Miller never said anything of the sort. Yet that's where the courts ended up.

Now we have a court looking at Heller and somehow getting hung up on the notion of "self-defense in the home." They're also egregiously extending the definition of a sensitive place far beyond what I think common sense dictates. They're saying that the right to self-defense can be regulated in any location where large numbers of people congregate, such as parks, schools, county fair grounds. While they did look askance at prohibition on guns in parking lots, I think the way is open to ban guns on sidewalks, streets, and even general open space, so long as "large numbers of people congregate there."

In other words, anywhere outside of the home that is public property can be construed (by this decision) to be a "sensitive place" because they define a "sensitive place" to be anywhere where large numbers of people congregate.

Worse, one of the ways that we thought we might get CCW is through LOC walks. But a LOC walk only works if you do it where there are large numbers of people. Which can be construed to be a sensitive place based on language found in Nordyke, and so the state and local governments can ban it.

We really need to nail down the definition of a sensitive place, and it has to be something more than just "there's a lot of people hanging out there." If the government isn't willing to guard that place with armed security and metal detectors, then in my opinion it isn't a sensitive place. But if we can't get the courts to recognize that, then we're going to see the same kind of logic drift that Miller brought us and which eventually ended up nearly dead-lettering the 2A.

As I said, glass half full.

Let the partying commence.

Pvt. Cowboy
04-20-2009, 12:07 PM
Judge Gould: ... Also, important governmental interests will justify reasonable regulation of rifles and handguns, and the problem for our courts will be to define, in the context of particular regulation by the states and municipalities, what is reasonable and permissible and what is unreasonable and offensive to the Second Amendment."

Trouble ahead, I fear how they may rule on this. They can affirm the 2nd, and cut us off at the feet with a draconian ruling.

Heller ruled that an absolute ban is unreasonable, as a reminder.

rod
04-20-2009, 12:08 PM
Congratulations California.
:party:

Icon_556
04-20-2009, 12:08 PM
:jump: X1000000000000

Mulay El Raisuli
04-20-2009, 12:08 PM
With Hickman not only effectively dead but EXPLICITLY BY RULING dead, CCW is the clear front runner. LOC will need a case or two.


As fond as I am for LOC, it looks that way to me also. Still, a win is a win is a win. Also, I'm not a complete fanatic. I'll apply for my CCW just as soon as Gene posts the go-ahead here.

Even though it appears that LOC will need a couple of cases, because of today's Ruling, those cases are MUCH stronger than they were last week.

Final thought: Might this help out Thesus?

The Raisuli

Monte
04-20-2009, 12:11 PM
I was just thinking, and I really never bothered to find out just how big an area the 9th circuit covers. Turns out it's bigger than I'd imagined:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/images/CircuitMap_01.jpg

bigcalidave
04-20-2009, 12:13 PM
Man! I've been busy all morning and didn't even get a chance to check this site until now, and I get some of the best news possible! What a great day for the state and the constitution in general!!!

ilbob
04-20-2009, 12:13 PM
don't get hung up on heller and the guns at home thing.

all heller asked for was to have a gun in his home and that is what the SCOTUS granted him.

Heller says its an individual right.

Incorporation says it really means something.

20 more years of litigation will flesh out just what rights you have in this area, and what rights you do not have.

yellowfin
04-20-2009, 12:13 PM
I'll apply for my CCW just as soon as Gene posts the go-ahead here. He's busy ordering the cigars and booking the caterers. Go ahead.

Roadrunner
04-20-2009, 12:14 PM
I was just thinking, and I really never bothered to find out just how big an area the 9th circuit covers. Turns out it's bigger than I'd imagined:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/images/CircuitMap_01.jpg

I would say that this has more of a positive impact on us than it does on the other states. Of course, those states may change their policies and reflect Vermont style carry. Alaska seems to be the least effected by this ruling.

elSquid
04-20-2009, 12:15 PM
Now we have a court looking at Heller and somehow getting hung up on the notion of "self-defense in the home." They're also egregiously extending the definition of a sensitive place far beyond what I think common sense dictates. They're saying that the right to self-defense can be regulated in any location where large numbers of people congregate, such as parks, schools, county fair grounds. While they did look askance at prohibition on guns in parking lots, I think the way is open to ban guns on sidewalks, streets, and even general open space, so long as "large numbers of people congregate there."

OTOH, from page 4509:

"We recently saw in the case of the terrorist
attack on Mumbai that terrorists may enter a country
covertly by ocean routes, landing in small craft and then
assembling to wreak havoc. That we have a lawfully armed
populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes
it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in
an attack on any community before more professional forces
arrived."

This sounds pretty pro-carry outside of the home.

-- Michael

JohnnyRooks
04-20-2009, 12:16 PM
wohoooooooo!!:hurray:

Monte
04-20-2009, 12:18 PM
I would say that this has more of a positive impact on us than it does on the other states. Of course, those states may change their policies and reflect Vermont style carry. Alaska seems to be the least effected by this ruling.

I figured as much, but incorporation for the other states (and territories) doesn't hurt!

xxdabroxx
04-20-2009, 12:18 PM
I predict that the Cal Guns Foundation grows exponentially in the near future. Let the donation flood gates open as well as the suit gates.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
04-20-2009, 12:21 PM
Look, I'm being a glass-half-full kind of a guy right now. Don't get me wrong, I'm jazzed that the 2A is incorporated and that Hickman is dead.

But.

Well said. This case is pro-regulation and I haven't read the decision carefully but it upholds what is basically a firearms sales restriction because it doesn't impede an individual's ability to defend himself in the home. This is kind of weird. At least now the lawsuits won't get thrown out before the other arguments can be made. Not sure I'm following the standard of review stuff but it looks like no strict scrutiny, and it's ok if the regulation furthers an important or substantial gov't interest like deterring gun violence. Overall this is pretty faithful to Heller, you've got an individual right but it's fine to regulate it, and this standard of review would be pretty easy to meet. Anyway I agree, it's a mixed bag.

Californio
04-20-2009, 12:22 PM
Look, I'm being a glass-half-full kind of a guy right now. Don't get me wrong, I'm jazzed that the 2A is incorporated and that Hickman is dead.

But.

It looks to me like the courts are engaging in the kind of logic drift that resulted after Miller. Miller, as most of you should know, really didn't decide anything. Yet based on Miller most of the Federal court system drifted into a wide-spread acceptance of the 2A as a collective right, and not an individual right. Miller never said anything of the sort. Yet that's where the courts ended up.

Now we have a court looking at Heller and somehow getting hung up on the notion of "self-defense in the home." They're also egregiously extending the definition of a sensitive place far beyond what I think common sense dictates. They're saying that the right to self-defense can be regulated in any location where large numbers of people congregate, such as parks, schools, county fair grounds. While they did look askance at prohibition on guns in parking lots, I think the way is open to ban guns on sidewalks, streets, and even general open space, so long as "large numbers of people congregate there."

In other words, anywhere outside of the home that is public property can be construed (by this decision) to be a "sensitive place" because they define a "sensitive place" to be anywhere where large numbers of people congregate.

Worse, one of the ways that we thought we might get CCW is through LOC walks. But a LOC walk only works if you do it where there are large numbers of people. Which can be construed to be a sensitive place based on language found in Nordyke, and so the state and local governments can ban it.

We really need to nail down the definition of a sensitive place, and it has to be something more than just "there's a lot of people hanging out there." If the government isn't willing to guard that place with armed security and metal detectors, then in my opinion it isn't a sensitive place. But if we can't get the courts to recognize that, then we're going to see the same kind of logic drift that Miller brought us and which eventually ended up nearly dead-lettering the 2A.

As I said, glass half full.

Let the partying commence.

In a way you are correct but this is a good start. "Reasonable Regulation", "Sensitive Place" etc. are going to have to be fought over until we have a uniform National Policy but I assume that will have to wait until the 2nd gets incorporated against all 50 States. Law is a very strange animal, why won't they just take the bull by the horns and put it down all at once and get it over with I will never understand. Every case just adds more questions.

trinydex
04-20-2009, 12:23 PM
This is true
we now just need to find them a location thats not on county owned property

anyone own a big empty warehouse ?

should be lots of those coming up with the economy the way it is

1911su16b870
04-20-2009, 12:24 PM
Wow...just trying to get my mind around the ramifications of the Nordyke decision in CA...

1. AW registration for all who can legally own a firearm.
2. CCW shall issue for all non-prohibited persons.

...though I believe the 626.9 prohibitions may remain and if it is possible for the Nordykes to appeal to the SCOTUS with the invalidity of having a gun show but prohibited from displaying guns.

Thank you Gene and Bill for all you do!

:party:

elenius
04-20-2009, 12:25 PM
I was just thinking, and I really never bothered to find out just how big an area the 9th circuit covers. Turns out it's bigger than I'd imagined:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/images/CircuitMap_01.jpg

I wonder which poor states are now still without any RKBA protection, given that most of the remaining ones have it in their state constitution. I guess Illinois and New York are among the unfortunate few.

1BigPea
04-20-2009, 12:25 PM
This is an AMAZING step forward for California!! I'm so excited right now I can't even finish my lunch.

Thanks to everyone who was involved in Nordyke!

Donation for CalGuns coming from me right now!


WOOT WOOOOOOOOO!

223Dude
04-20-2009, 12:27 PM
All I can Say is thank you and YAY!!!

trinydex
04-20-2009, 12:27 PM
Judge Gould: "Third, while the Second Amendment thus stands as a protection against both external threat and internal tyranny, the recognition of the individual’s right in the Second Amendment, and its incorporation by the Due Process Clause against the states, is not inconsistent with the reasonable regulation of weaponry. All weapons are not “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment, so, for example, no individual could sensibly argue that the Second Amendment gives them a right to have nuclear weapons or chemical weapons in their home for self-defense. Also, important governmental interests will justify reasonable regulation of rifles and handguns, and the problem for our courts will be to define, in the context of particular regulation by the states and municipalities, what is reasonable and permissible and what is unreasonable and offensive to the Second Amendment."

Trouble ahead, I fear how they may rule on this. They can affirm the 2nd, and cut us off at the feet with a draconian ruling.

what could be considered important governmental interests?

SDI
04-20-2009, 12:28 PM
History in the making. :thumbsup:

Theseus
04-20-2009, 12:29 PM
:jump:

Still wonder how exactly this helps me....but YAY!!!

If we got something going on tonight I will try to be there. . . I am about broke, but a party is in order!

hoffmang
04-20-2009, 12:30 PM
Well said. This case is pro-regulation and I haven't read the decision carefully but it upholds what is basically a firearms sales restriction because it doesn't impede an individual's ability to defend himself in the home. This is kind of weird. At least now the lawsuits won't get thrown out before the other arguments can be made. Not sure I'm following the standard of review stuff but it looks like no strict scrutiny, and it's ok if the regulation furthers an important or substantial gov't interest like deterring gun violence. Overall this is pretty faithful to Heller, you've got an individual right but it's fine to regulate it, and this standard of review would be pretty easy to meet. Anyway I agree, it's a mixed bag.

Don't confuse the speech issues with the 2A issues. It's not completely surprising that just as a government can opt out of "funding" abortions, under the Second Amendment a government may be able to opt out of supporting the right to bear arms.

-Gene

toaster
04-20-2009, 12:30 PM
:jump::cheers2:

hoffmang
04-20-2009, 12:31 PM
Still wonder how exactly this helps me....but YAY!!!


I think you'll be pleasantly surprised what this case does for you.

You have a whole new defense you didn't have Friday.

-Gene

Futurecollector
04-20-2009, 12:34 PM
:jump:

Still wonder how exactly this helps me....but YAY!!!

If we got something going on tonight I will try to be there. . . I am about broke, but a party is in order!

Haha, I wonder the same thing, But still Im happy as heck, I called my dad and other people!!!!! :thumbsup:

Joe
04-20-2009, 12:34 PM
what is hickman? and whats fresno rifle? and why are they dead?

I'm late to the party, was returning the rental car and dealing with work issues. I still have to go thru it completely but it's a bell-ringer.

And what an excellent way to wake up the day after the Big Reno Show!

The result is a tad sideways (at least for the Nordykes) and may have
been a less probable outcome than we predicted - but this result may well have helped us.


... Hickman dead,
... Fresno Rifle dead,
...We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear
arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators
and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic
all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been
regarded as the “true palladium of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to
assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought
to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century
later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our
birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed
fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception
of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded
that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates
the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments."The Second Amendment is ALIVE in California.

Start the bulldozers gentlmen, we have some dismantlement work ahead of us.

Note that the opposition (Alameda) CANNOT appeal - they "won"; they cannot do en banc, etc.

*WE* can appeal, because "we lost" (a la Nordkyes) - but even thru course of appeals, INCORPORATION OF THE 2nd STILL STANDS, regardless of the fate of the Nordyke gunshow.

bigcalidave
04-20-2009, 12:34 PM
Gene what do you guys need now? How are the coffers? What can the CG community do to help the battle move ahead? You're like the general here, give out some direction.

nat
04-20-2009, 12:34 PM
Thank you to all involved :thumbsup:

lorax3
04-20-2009, 12:35 PM
The only issue I see is the interpretation of 'sensitive places'. Is the court stating that county property is indeed a sensitive place?

And although the 2A should be incorporation it does not apply to this case since Alameda's restriction is reasonable.

Hrm.

-lorax

pullnshoot25
04-20-2009, 12:36 PM
What I want to know is what should the UOC guys be doing right now? Also, when can I apply for my freaking CVW permit!

Gene, advise when ready!!!

Steyr_223
04-20-2009, 12:36 PM
Way Cool!

I wonder how the main stream media will spin this today..Nothing on SFgate or the SJ Mercury yet...

cindynles
04-20-2009, 12:38 PM
Check is on the way to the Calguns Foundation!

Stubby
04-20-2009, 12:38 PM
Today is a great day!!! I am still taking it all in!
Its time to celebrate :jump:

yellowfin
04-20-2009, 12:39 PM
what is hickman? and whats fresno rifle? and why are they dead?
Hickman is Hickman v Block, a case that substantiated and upheld discriminatory CCW issue in a rather disgusting way, essentially establishing sheriffs as autocrats with absolute impunity. Under Hickman, 2A rights for the individual do not exist AT ALL, and pretty much if it's anything to do with firearms the government can treat you in any manner they see fit and you can't do a thing about it.

Hopi
04-20-2009, 12:40 PM
Finally.

Joe
04-20-2009, 12:40 PM
Hickman is Hickman v Block, a case that substantiated and upheld discriminatory CCW issue in a rather disgusting way, essentially establishing sheriffs as autocrats with absolute impunity to deny them. Under Hickman, 2A rights for the individual do not exist AT ALL, and pretty much if it's anything to do with firearms the government can treat you in any manner they see fit and you can't do a thing about it.

:O how the hell did i miss reading about that?!

thanks for the summary

AlexDD
04-20-2009, 12:41 PM
I came home to lunch and just found myself engrossed in reading all the posts. Thanks to everyone for your insights.

This is terrific. CCW!

:thumbsup:

putput
04-20-2009, 12:41 PM
I'm guessing that you won’t find it on SF Gate. They won’t want people to know that they have the right to a firearm…

Way Cool!

I wonder how the main stream media will spin this today..Nothing on SFgate or the SJ Mercury yet...

Aegis
04-20-2009, 12:42 PM
This is good news and hopefully adds momentum to what Heller started.

I am interested to see what happens to AB357 during the committee hearing. If AB357 does not even make it out of committee, we can expect that the legislature is going to fight this to the end. If this happens, we may not see shall issue CCW in California for 2-3 years. I hope this is not the case, but the anti 2A members of the California legislature are very irrational and obtaining shall issue CCW through the courts will not be a quick process.

JDoe
04-20-2009, 12:42 PM
OTOH, from page 4509:

"We recently saw in the case of the terrorist
attack on Mumbai that terrorists may enter a country
covertly by ocean routes, landing in small craft and then
assembling to wreak havoc. That we have a lawfully armed
populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes
it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in
an attack on any community before more professional forces
arrived.1"

This sounds pretty pro-carry outside of the home.

-- Michael

and the footnote to that is equally good reading...

1English history as summarized by Winston Churchill shows constant
recourse to militia to withstand invading forces that arrived not rarely
from England’s neighboring lands. See generally 2 Winston S. Churchill,
History of the English Speaking Peoples: The New World (Dodd, Mead,
& Co. 1966); 3 Winston S. Churchill, History of the English Speaking
Peoples: The Age of Revolution (Dodd, Mead, & Co. 1967). Also, during
World War II, when England feared for its survival and anticipated the
possibility of a Nazi invasion, its homeland security policy took into
account that its Home Guard might slow or retard an offensive, which
could come at any point on the coastline, until trained military forces
could be brought to bear to repel an invader—because “England was to be
defended by its people, not destroyed.” See generally 1 Winston Churchill,
Their Finest Hour 161-76, esp. 174-76 (Houghton Mifflin Co. 1949).

:thumbsup:

wcnones
04-20-2009, 12:43 PM
From my reading of the opinion, the Nordykes simply need to ensure that any firearm present at a gunshow held on county property be incapable of causing harm. The Scottish re-enactors use blanks in their weapons, thus eliminating the need to protect county property visitors from being shot.

The Nordykes could petition the county to allow the gunshow and require that every firearm be under lock and key, making them incapable of firing a round and eliminating the need to protect county propety visitors from being shot. Example: every firearm at the show cannot fire unless the vendor selling the firearm removes whatever device precludes operation. Any purchase made at the gunshow of any firearm cannot be consummated unless off county property. So, I go there and see a C&R Garand I want. The Garand is locked and cannot be unlocked by me. I buy the Garand, and it remains locked. I go to my car, drive to non-county property, and then pick up the rifle which has been transported there by show employees and unlocked when the transfer takes place.

Yes? No? Can't this make it win-win for "us" collectively and individually? If the county denies the petition, then the Nordykes could challenge based on the wording of the opinion.

Theseus
04-20-2009, 12:44 PM
Oh, and someone call Liberty1!!! I would but I forgot his number.

jacques
04-20-2009, 12:45 PM
"We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear
arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators
and lawmakers living during the first one hundred
years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature
of the right. It has long been regarded as the “true palladium
of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their
independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a
recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later.
The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our
birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental,
that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception
of ordered liberty that we have inherited.17 We are
therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and
applies it against the states and local governments. "

Finally they hit the nail on the head. Hopefully Nordykes will appeal and win their case also.

This coming the day after April19 is touching. We must remember all the people who died in the revolution to secure our freedoms, but were never able to fully enjoy them. I am glad, at least, this court recognizes it was a noble venture by the revolutionaries, something many have forgotten. Nordyke has a fight ahead of them, and I hope they are successful.

DRM6000
04-20-2009, 12:46 PM
that's a pretty good idea. the dealer could always ship a c&r or have a buyer pick it at an alternate location (ffl's shop). everything else needs to go through a ffl anyway so your idea would work.

From my reading of the opinion, the Nordykes simply need to ensure that any firearm present at a gunshow held on county property be incapable of causing harm. The Scottish re-enactors use blanks in their weapons, thus eliminating the need to protect county property visitors from being shot.

The Nordykes could petition the county to allow the gunshow and require that every firearm be under lock and key, making them incapable of firing a round and eliminating the need to protect county propety visitors from being shot. Example: every firearm at the show cannot fire unless the vendor selling the firearm removes whatever device precludes operation. Any purchase made at the gunshow of any firearm cannot be consummated unless off county property. So, I go there and see a C&R Garand I want. The Garand is locked and cannot be unlocked by me. I buy the Garand, and it remains locked. I go to my car, drive to non-county property, and then pick up the rifle which has been transported there by show employees and unlocked when the transfer takes place.

Yes? No? Can't this make it win-win for "us" collectively and individually? If the county denies the petition, then the Nordykes could challenge based on the wording of the opinion.

FreshTapCoke
04-20-2009, 12:46 PM
Oh, and someone call Liberty1!!! I would but I forgot his number.

I called him, he already heard the good news. =D

Liberty1
04-20-2009, 12:49 PM
What I want to know is what should the UOC guys be doing right now? Also, when can I apply for my freaking CVW permit!

Gene, advise when ready!!!

Yes, waiting for the officers to blow the whistle to go over the top is frustraiting.

Keep waiting, the reserves are forming up and they're also still trying to invent a functional tank. You don't want to be sent into Paschendale just yet.

JDoe
04-20-2009, 12:49 PM
Way Cool!

I wonder how the main stream media will spin this today..Nothing on SFgate or the SJ Mercury yet...

The MSM is definitely trying to figure out how to spin this one considering that most of their positions were anti-2nd.

Not exactly MSM but here is the first I found...

http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=3778

Librarian
04-20-2009, 12:50 PM
Oh, and someone call Liberty1!!! I would but I forgot his number.

Done, about 1010 :)

ETA: and I couldn't let SFGate get by, so I sent them a link to the case via their Feedback page. :)

Liberty1
04-20-2009, 12:50 PM
I called him, he already heard the good news. =D

Librarian called me at 1030 hours!!!!!!! Thanks Pard!!!!! :) So where is the So Cal Party?

xxdabroxx
04-20-2009, 12:51 PM
donation inbound, it will be needed.

RomanDad
04-20-2009, 12:56 PM
THE SECOND AMENDMENT WON TODAY!

My phone is ringing off the hook and we're starting to try to pull together what to do tonight.

Here is the situation:

1. The Second Amendment applies to all states, counties and cities in the 9th Circuit including California.

2. We "lost." It sucks for Don and the Nordykes in the short term. However! We control the appeals process! We get to choose to petition for Cert with SCOTUS. It's too soon to have a prediction on what happens but I can tell you this. We don't have to worry about the antis trying to stall the application of an Incorporated Fundamental Right To Keep and Bear Arms!

Please only unloaded open carry in groups. Let's bring these challenges in the right order.

Second order immediate effects:

1. I'll be making sure OAL is aware of this on the petitions we have pending there.

2. Most every anti-gun bill in Sacramento now faces real constitutional arguments against it for the first time in 20 years. Think about writing letters again on these issues!

PARTY! Just please don't drink and drive tonight!

-Gene


And speaking of PARTY.....


The Republican Central Committee will be meeting tonight at 7PM to discuss passing a vote of NO CONFIDENCE against Sheriff Sandra Hutchens who has repeatedly said CCW is not a 2nd Amendment Issue.

ALL ARE WELCOME TO FILL THE ROOM!!! Lets hear what she has to say now that Hickman is a bad memory.

7 PM the Hyatt Regency Irvine.
17900 Jamboree Road
Irvine, CA 92614

Theseus
04-20-2009, 12:57 PM
My house?

Even better, there is a park in the local area that is not in a school zone. . .

kermit
04-20-2009, 12:58 PM
Way Cool!

I wonder how the main stream media will spin this today..Nothing on SFgate or the SJ Mercury yet...

They'll probably laud the court's decision to ban gunshows and ignore the 2A implications. Maybe even call for a statewide gunshow ban to stop the flow of guns to Mexico due to the "gunshow loophole". Why let facts ruin their agenda?:TFH:

odysseus
04-20-2009, 12:58 PM
We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.

MUCH SUCCESS!!!!

:jump:

Pvt. Cowboy
04-20-2009, 12:58 PM
I have to wonder how Walter Dellinger feels today. His 'collective rights' argument is dismissed everywhere, and the guy is still teaching law.

I also have to wonder how the Brady Campaign feels.

We should ask them.

Liberty1
04-20-2009, 12:58 PM
And speaking of PARTY.....


The Republican Central Committee will be meeting tonight at 7PM to discuss passing a vote of NO CONFIDENCE against Sheriff Sandra Hutchens who has repeatedly said CCW is not a 2nd Amendment Issue.

ALL ARE WELCOME TO FILL THE ROOM!!! Lets hear what she has to say now that Hickman is a bad memory.

7 PM the Hyatt Regency Irvine.
17900 Jamboree Road
Irvine, CA 92614

You all meeting before and or after for fellowship? And of course the RCM is open to UOC right?















...JK :)

Liberty1
04-20-2009, 1:00 PM
I have to wonder how Walter Dellinger feels today. His 'collective rights' argument is dismissed everywhere, and the guy is still teaching law.

I also have to wonder how the Brady Campaign feels.

We should ask them.

They're happy that the "sensitive places" BS is being interpreted broadly. :(

Standard
04-20-2009, 1:00 PM
Great news, thanks to everyone involved! So can I apply for a CCW now?

Nodda Duma
04-20-2009, 1:01 PM
Thanks to all the folks who were involved in obtaining this successful incorporation ruling.

Also, once The Right People have analyzed the ruling, are we going to see some sort of "official statement" that I could pass on to the local gun clubs and organizations regarding the incorporation ruling? I know I could go ahead and just let them know, but I would be afraid of missing some important tidbit or screwing up the story and spreading FUD.

-Jason

xxdabroxx
04-20-2009, 1:02 PM
you can, but depending on your sheriff it still may be a no go. at least for a while.

Monte
04-20-2009, 1:03 PM
They'll probably laud the court's decision to ban gunshows and ignore the 2A implications. Maybe even call for a statewide gunshow ban to stop the flow of guns to Mexico due to the "gunshow loophole". Why let facts ruin their agenda?:TFH:

Unfortunately, I think you probably pretty much nailed that, assuming they don't just ignore the whole thing.

sastark
04-20-2009, 1:05 PM
Great news!

Did this decision come out today? If so, anyone else notice the significance of the date?

Bruce3
04-20-2009, 1:07 PM
Great news!

Did this decision come out today? If so, anyone else notice the significance of the date?

Hitlers birth day? columbine shooting?

ar15barrels
04-20-2009, 1:08 PM
Essentially, it is ridiculous for the state to assert that the 2nd Amendment only allows you to protect yourself in your home.

When did the state start applying logic and common sense to it's rules and regulations?

wildhawker
04-20-2009, 1:09 PM
Great news!

Did this decision come out today? If so, anyone else notice the significance of the date?

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education?

CCWFacts
04-20-2009, 1:10 PM
The first article (http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=11728) on Nordyke says only "it was a victory for Alameda because it means they can ban gun shows." No mention at all of any other implications of it.

SigShooter
04-20-2009, 1:12 PM
I just want to say thank you to the Nordykes, Don Kilmer and all those involved in this case. Although the Nordykes did not "win" their case, they have secured a major victory for gun owners in the 9th.

I look forward the the "next steps" CGF and others are working on.

RobG
04-20-2009, 1:12 PM
Exciting, exciting times!! Am I the only one that wants to give the one finger salute to all those from other states that say Californians have no spine when it comes to fighting our ridiculous gun laws and have no one to blame but ourselves:43:

sastark
04-20-2009, 1:12 PM
Hitlers birth day? columbine shooting?

The Columbine shooting, which was used as anti-gun propaganda by the anti-gun lobby. Just find it interesting, is all, whether it was intentional or not.

383green
04-20-2009, 1:13 PM
Guys and gals, I'd just like to say that I'm so excited that I haven't been able to read too much of this thread yet (I basically skimmed for comments from a few specific key people), and I feel like I'm about to hurl. I'm gonna go hide in an unoccupied room here at work for a while and try to calm myself down. I've emailed/called several non-Calgunner friends who I know would be excited by this news.

To the Nordykes, I'd like to say that I'm sorry that they lost their case, but if I were in their shoes, I think I might just consider losing the case to be an acceptable cost in order to secure an appeal-proof (?) incorporation of the 2nd Amendment in this circuit and to gain control over any SCOTUS appeal process.

Thank you so very much to everybody who helped make this possible. This is an event that I never expected to see in my lifetime!

Ok, it's nap-time for me now!

:clap:

BTW, I see that Hawaii is in our circuit, too. I suspect that this ruling is pretty big news there, too.

ar15barrels
04-20-2009, 1:14 PM
What other "class of arms" are being prohibited, especially in California?

AW.

MudCamper
04-20-2009, 1:14 PM
The first article (http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=11728) on Nordyke says only "it was a victory for Alameda because it means they can ban gun shows." No mention at all of any other implications of it.

The ostriches will bury their head in the sand.

blackberg
04-20-2009, 1:15 PM
Sweet!
Hopefully this has some sway for AB357 tomorrow

-bb

dw33b
04-20-2009, 1:15 PM
Great news!

Did this decision come out today? If so, anyone else notice the significance of the date?

In 1980 Cuba announced the Mariel Boatlift that started off a cascade of events that led to the downfall of Jimmy Carter and the Rise of Ronald Reagan. Thats pretty significant.

lasereye
04-20-2009, 1:16 PM
The first article (http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=11728) on Nordyke says only "it was a victory for Alameda because it means they can ban gun shows." No mention at all of any other implications of it.

Wow, what a white wash that is. I'm sure it will be the same for most of the media.

Cru Jones
04-20-2009, 1:16 PM
Donation to The Calguns Foundation inbound.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
04-20-2009, 1:16 PM
Don't confuse the speech issues with the 2A issues. It's not completely surprising that just as a government can opt out of "funding" abortions, under the Second Amendment a government may be able to opt out of supporting the right to bear arms.

-Gene

Got it...speed reading isn't the best way to read a court opinion.:D I wouldn't want to bring an AW challenge under Nordyke though.

yellowfin
04-20-2009, 1:17 PM
Although the Nordykes did not "win" their case, they have secured a major victory for gun owners in the 9th. Cured cancer but cholesterol went up 10 points.

AEC1
04-20-2009, 1:18 PM
Why are we wanting Registered AW? Treat them as the Long guns they are and not register them at all. I am so glad I saved the Mag button from all my LPK's.

yellowfin
04-20-2009, 1:18 PM
The ostriches will bury their head in the sand. But get skinned for leather, plucked for fans, and ground up for burgers. :43:

E Pluribus Unum
04-20-2009, 1:19 PM
This is awesome. Very good news.

It is not all bad for Alameda residents either. By incorporating, they removed a county's right to restrict gun shows on private property. This means area hotels, parking lots, or other large pieces of land that are PRIVATELY owned are free to hold gun shows.

I am very happy.

elSquid
04-20-2009, 1:21 PM
The Columbine shooting, which was used as anti-gun propaganda by the anti-gun lobby. Just find it interesting, is all, whether it was intentional or not.

Actually, a lot of interesting things have happened on April 20:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_20

This one stood out:

1871 – The Civil Rights Act of 1871 becomes law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1871)

-- Michael

Monte
04-20-2009, 1:23 PM
Exciting, exciting times!! Am I the only one that wants to give the one finger salute to all those from other states that say Californians have no spine when it comes to fighting our ridiculous gun laws and have no one to blame but ourselves:43:

Actually, I was thinking the same thing. ;)

hoffmang
04-20-2009, 1:24 PM
This is also the first business day after the anniversary of "The Shot Heard 'Round The World."

-Gene

CitaDeL
04-20-2009, 1:25 PM
:jump:

Still wonder how exactly this helps me....but YAY!!!

If we got something going on tonight I will try to be there. . . I am about broke, but a party is in order!

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised what this case does for you.

You have a whole new defense you didn't have Friday.
-Gene

Applauds loudly :clap::clap::clap:

Liberty1
04-20-2009, 1:30 PM
Actually, a lot of interesting things have happened on April 20:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_20

This one stood out:

1871 – The Civil Rights Act of 1871 becomes law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1871)

-- Michael

42 USC 1893! Go Baby!

383green
04-20-2009, 1:30 PM
This is also the first business day after the anniversary of "The Shot Heard 'Round The World."

-Gene

That is awesome. I had already considered that this ruling's significance is on par with that event, but I didn't realize that the dates were so close. Do you think this is a coincidence, or did the court time the announcement this way for theatric effect?

HowardW56
04-20-2009, 1:31 PM
My first scroll through quickly..........it looks like we got incorporation?

Thats how I reead it...

sastark
04-20-2009, 1:31 PM
This is also the first business day after the anniversary of "The Shot Heard 'Round The World."

-Gene

Oh! Very good point! I read "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere" on Saturday, but didn't connect the dots.

chrisdesoup
04-20-2009, 1:32 PM
:party:

Liberty1
04-20-2009, 1:38 PM
This is also the first business day after the anniversary of "The Shot Heard 'Round The World."

-Gene

A great day for sure!

But weren't Capt'n Parker and his boys on the Village Green? A sensitive place apparently:rolleyes:. The lobster backs were just there to enforce the law! :chris:

ar15barrels
04-20-2009, 1:38 PM
Librarian called me at 1030 hours!!!!!!! Thanks Pard!!!!! :) So where is the So Cal Party?

I think Matt said it was at his house after 7:30 tonight.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=175327

wash
04-20-2009, 1:38 PM
What does this do for our time lines?

It seems like loosing the battle let us win the war of incorporation with no way for it to get delayed any further.

Is that the right way to look at it?

The next time I go to the TS gun show I'm going to pay for my entrance and I'm going to pay for 10 of my invisible friends too.

Once I know where the party is at, I'll be there with some cash for CGF also!

ttboy
04-20-2009, 1:39 PM
:party::party:

dreyna14
04-20-2009, 1:39 PM
I think i'm going to go pick up my CCW application today. :)

Good Cause Statement: 2nd F-ing Amendment, biatches.

LOL. I love it that the 2nd is incorporated, however, my problem is this with regards to CCW, since it was incorporated under the due process clause, then the stupid "good cause" crap must be applied equally over the state, under my understanding. This could be either good or bad, depending on where you live. People in good counties can see their CCW's restricted to bring them more in line and equal with crap counties like Los Angeles, OR, we could see morons like Baca and Hutchens be forced to loosen their restrictions.

Given the way tides turn in this state, it could easily go the former. Now Sacramento can, and probably will, issue direct guidelines about "good cause" and screw those in good counties. I don't think we'll see shall issue any time soon unless AB357 passes by some miraculous act of God.

MKE
04-20-2009, 1:39 PM
Awesome news, everyone and great read on this long thread.

On top of CCW, I'm anxious to see the gun roster and high cap mags get challenged and an end to the ideas of microstamping and huge ammo taxes.

What a new day!

Liberty1
04-20-2009, 1:41 PM
I think Matt said it was at his house after 7:30 tonight.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=175327

thanks!

swaits
04-20-2009, 1:42 PM
Congrats all. I just sent in another CFG donation. CGF is doing more for our rights than anyone else.

Isn't it funny that, in today's world, we need courts to tell us that the Constitution still counts?