PDA

View Full Version : Future of Nordyke case?


DDT
04-20-2009, 2:18 PM
Is it likely that the Nordykes will appeal this on the claim that the Fairgrounds isn't a "sensitive area?"

I don't see why they wouldn't (aside from the obvious monetary reason.)

This would be the fastest track to getting "sensitive areas" defined by SCOTUS. Any other challenge (such as "school zone") would take years to meander through the courts.

yellowfin
04-20-2009, 2:43 PM
Hell no they shouldn't appeal this. File a separate suit, perhaps, but leave this ruling ALONE! There is much too much to risk giving up an easy win that's set in stone. Appealing this would be phenomenally selfish and short sighted, basically like giving your 5 year old kid chemotherapy and exploratory surgery to keep yourself from catching his cold.

Appealing this would:

1. Risk the good ruling AND important points like specific and direct overruling of Hickman.
2. Delay implementation which has been held back for decades.
3. Risk bad ruling being put in by the other judges in en banc.

The Nordykes have some of the best counsel and support team in the country. There's no way in a million years they'd want to throw away a victory, particularly one that was purposefully crafted to avoid appeals.

mblat
04-20-2009, 2:49 PM
What is extremely bothersome about Nordyke is the fact that Nordyke lost.

So.... government has a right to restrict 2A on its property. I think Volokh put it the best

It's not clear exactly what test the panel was applying for deciding what constitutes a "sensitive place[]," especially since county parks and the fairgrounds are probably not as "important to government functioning" as are schools (running which has long been seen by American state constitutions as a core government function) and many government buildings. Is it that all "prohibiti[ons on] firearm possession on municipal property," including public streets and sidewalks — i.e., total carry bans, including in one's car or on one's person on the sidewalk — are constitutionally permissible? (Note that while the government generally has the right to restrict the exercise of many constitutional rights, including not just abortion rights but free speech rights, in many government buildings, it generally is substantially constrained by many provisions — such as the First and Fourth Amendments — on public streets and sidewalks.)

Would the "sensitive places" exception cover only prohibitions in places "where high numbers of people might congregate" (with the threshold perhaps higher than the number of people that would usually be present on a normal city sidewalk)? Would state and federal parks in the sense of Yosemite and the like, as opposed to small city and county parks, also qualify? What about people's apartments in public housing projects, which are "municipal property" but not themselves places where many people congregate?

So... it looks like there is no CCW, at least in short term. It seems like no guns what so ever in parks.... or any other government property....

So.... it looks like a win..... but at this point a hollow one....

nobody_special
04-20-2009, 2:55 PM
If they appeal, would the incorporation holding necessarily be subject to review? I'm no expert, but I think not.

jasilva
04-20-2009, 2:57 PM
Hell no they shouldn't appeal this. File a separate suit, perhaps, but leave this ruling ALONE! There is much too much to risk giving up an easy win that's set in stone. Appealing this would be phenomenally selfish and short sighted, basically like giving your 5 year old kid chemotherapy and exploratory surgery to keep yourself from catching his cold.

Appealing this would:

1. Risk the good ruling AND important points like specific and direct overruling of Hickman.
2. Delay implementation which has been held back for decades.
3. Risk bad ruling being put in by the other judges in en banc.

The Nordykes have some of the best counsel and support team in the country. There's no way in a million years they'd want to throw away a victory, particularly one that was purposefully crafted to avoid appeals.

I believe they can appeal only the portion of the ruling that directly affects them. But I bet it doesn't matter, the SCOTUS wants a 2a case from the states and they are going to get one. Maloney created the split so that gives the SCOTUS all they need to grab that case and rule on incorporation.

yellowfin
04-20-2009, 3:15 PM
What is extremely bothersome about Nordyke is the fact that Nordyke lost.

So.... government has a right to restrict 2A on its property. I think Volokh put it the best


So... it looks like there is no CCW, at least in short term. It seems like no guns what so ever in parks.... or any other government property....

So.... it looks like a win..... but at this point a hollow one....
At most it would mean no UOC or LOC on government property, which is a moot point if CCW is made more accessible, and when THE #1 CASE DENYING CCW IS VOID, it has just been made vastly more within reach.

Cue 5000-10000 CCW denial suits.

mblat
04-20-2009, 3:21 PM
At most it would mean no UOC or LOC on government property, which is a moot point if CCW is made more accessible, and when THE #1 CASE DENYING CCW IS VOID, it has just been made vastly more within reach.

Cue 5000-10000 CCW denial suits.

Listen.... I am not a lawyer, so you need to go slow. What in this particular case makes you think that CCW will be easily obtainable in any close future?
The way I see it in places will have to get sued, and it takes years..... that is assuming that places like LA and SF will even go to "pro" side. They likely will not.
So...... we win, great...... but as far as reality we will have to wait five to ten years to really see things to change... right?

wash
04-20-2009, 3:36 PM
This should mean less bonehead legislation becomes law. I don't know where the first point of attack will be post incorporation but at least we can be in full attack mode getting our rights back.

A judge can't tell us "you loose because the state government decided that the second amendment doesn't apply to you".

hoffmang
04-20-2009, 3:36 PM
Niether the right of self defense nor the right to carry arms was in this case. As such, people should slow down from drawing conclusions that there is a general public exemption to the right to bear arms.

Counties and cities can prohibit non self defense firearms at events on publicly owned property. It by no means goes so far as to say that they can ban even legitimate CCW at those events.

-Gene

Legasat
04-20-2009, 3:44 PM
[QUOTE=mblat;2349417]The way I see it in places will have to get sued, and it takes years..... that is assuming that places like LA and SF will even go to "pro" side. They likely will not.
QUOTE]

How come when people talk about California, they seem to exempt the 2nd largest city in the state, and the 8th largest in the country? CCW permits are very hard to get in San Diego too

just feeling slighted... ;-)

wash
04-20-2009, 3:45 PM
But to make a ban they have to vote on a new law and I'm sure that there will be plenty of people telling the legislators that they don't want new laws that will just get struck down in court.

Look at the SF handgun ban, I was getting ready to cherry pick some of the nice pistols that SF residents would have had to sell but there was an injunction or something and they all got to keep them. :-(

If we are diligent we should be able to block any future bans in the same way.

mblat
04-20-2009, 3:45 PM
Niether the right of self defense nor the right to carry arms was in this case. As such, people should slow down from drawing conclusions that there is a general public exemption to the right to bear arms.

Counties and cities can prohibit non self defense firearms at events on publicly owned property. It by no means goes so far as to say that they can ban even legitimate CCW at those events.

-Gene

K... that sounds encouraging..... like I said I am not a lawyer and I a trying to to rush into any conclusions.

However.... returning to "core" question(s) here.....
You have mentioned ( in other thread ) "carry unloaded only in groups". Does it mean CGF have changed it's position on not defending UOC?
About CCW. What is your best estimate on CCW becoming "shall-issue" (or de-facto "shall-issue" in CA?

yellowfin
04-20-2009, 3:48 PM
Listen.... I am not a lawyer, so you need to go slow. What in this particular case makes you think that CCW will be easily obtainable in any close future?
The way I see it in places will have to get sued, and it takes years..... that is assuming that places like LA and SF will even go to "pro" side. They likely will not.
So...... we win, great...... but as far as reality we will have to wait five to ten years to really see things to change... right?

The suits will be very swift because the issue of CCW is directly addressed. Hickman v Block said that CCW's were not a right of the people because the individual has no 2A rights and thus has no standing to demand them. Nordyke says that self defense is an individual right (Heller) and that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states AND Hickman v Block is void. Put that together and you have the perfect formula for CCW lawsuits. The obvious strong cause cases will probably have to go first, but very soon after that just about anyone with a clean record will be able to go after it...or the obvious ones will get ruled immediately and the others will take a while.

We have thousands of people waiting on CCW's that now have the perfect leverage to attack.

Thus far I haven't seen anything posted from the Hat Wearing One yet.

bulgron
04-20-2009, 3:53 PM
The suits will be very swift because the issue of CCW is directly addressed. Hickman v Block said that CCW's were not a right of the people because the individual has no 2A rights and thus has no standing to demand them. Nordyke says that self defense is an individual right (Heller) and that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states AND Hickman v Block is void. Put that together and you have the perfect formula for CCW lawsuits. The obvious strong cause cases will probably have to go first, but very soon after that just about anyone with a clean record will be able to go after it...or the obvious ones will get ruled immediately and the others will take a while.

We have thousands of people waiting on CCW's that now have the perfect leverage to attack.

Thus far I haven't seen anything posted from the Hat Wearing One yet.

On the other hand, Heller did say that CCW regulation is permissible.

There's this gnarly problem of getting the courts to admit that some form of public carry is required. How we get from here to there is beyond me.

Flopper
04-20-2009, 4:11 PM
On the other hand, Heller did say that CCW regulation is permissible.

There's this gnarly problem of getting the courts to admit that some form of public carry is required. How we get from here to there is beyond me.
per Alan Gura:

heller said that there is a right to keep AND bear arms.

they can regulate the the form of carrying, but there cannot be an outright ban.

what this means in realistic terms is that every jurisdiction will eventually have to allow either open carry or concealed carry, and CCW is the logical choice for modern-day society.

RomanDad
04-20-2009, 4:11 PM
Niether the right of self defense nor the right to carry arms was in this case. As such, people should slow down from drawing conclusions that there is a general public exemption to the right to bear arms.

Counties and cities can prohibit non self defense firearms at events on publicly owned property. It by no means goes so far as to say that they can ban even legitimate CCW at those events.

-Gene

Thats right.....

The floodgates are wide open.

Liberty1
04-20-2009, 4:31 PM
...every jurisdiction will eventually have to allow either open carry or concealed carry, and CCW is the logical choice for modern-day society.



What ever the 2nd A protects will (eventually) be the same nation wide. Based on Heller quoting Robinson v Baldwin I believe LOC will be that right. I wish CCW was included but I don't think it will be as states like their traditional prohibitions and licensing of concealed weapons.

glockman19
04-20-2009, 4:33 PM
I think we have to have a DOJ "Memorandum" that at very least details the state and city laws that may be open to attack. Los Angeles' ban on small handguns, "saturday night specials", will surely not stand. in addition to high capacity magazines, "assult weapons", San Fram's housing discrimination and many more.

nick
04-20-2009, 4:45 PM
How come when people talk about California, they seem to exempt the 2nd largest city in the state, and the 8th largest in the country? CCW permits are very hard to get in San Diego too

just feeling slighted... ;-)

It's less insane than LA or SF, so it doesn't make as good an example of insanity :)