PDA

View Full Version : CPOA-Nordyke Client Alert


sfpcservice
04-28-2009, 5:07 PM
Can someone post or direct the rest of us where we can read this alert? I'm very curious to read it. :hide:

Liberty1
04-29-2009, 10:05 AM
anybody got a copy? I don't.

CA_Libertarian
04-29-2009, 7:20 PM
Can someone post or direct the rest of us where we can read this alert? I'm very curious to read it. :hide:

Where did you hear about its existence in the first place? Perhaps that's the person to ask. I don't pretend to be 'in the loop' but this is the first I've heard of it.

swhatb
04-29-2009, 8:02 PM
looking for memo also! bump.

Where did you hear about its existence in the first place? Perhaps that's the person to ask. I don't pretend to be 'in the loop' but this is the first I've heard of it.

Roadrunner
04-29-2009, 8:23 PM
I just discovered by Googleing Cpoa and Nordyke that CPOA is California Peace Officers Association. What I'm curious to know is why would police care about Nordyke at this point? Is there something in the court decision that needs the immediate attention of the police?

DDT
04-29-2009, 8:24 PM
After reading some of the posts here I suspect they're warning their members that a lot of gun owners are likely to start doing stupid things thinking that all gun laws are now mooted.

Roadrunner
04-29-2009, 8:39 PM
After reading some of the posts here I suspect they're warning their members that a lot of gun owners are likely to start doing stupid things thinking that all gun laws are now mooted.

And just how do you suppose the police will respond to this? Will they simply warn those they encounter, or will these people be arrested and have their firearms confiscated?

CA_Libertarian
04-29-2009, 8:39 PM
I just discovered by Googleing Cpoa and Nordyke that CPOA is California Peace Officers Association. What I'm curious to know is why would police care about Nordyke at this point? Is there something in the court decision that needs the immediate attention of the police?

My guess is that incorporation of the 2nd Amendment means we have standing to sue when this right is violated. The CPOA would be wise to warn it's clients that their previously sanctioned actions may now be challenged.

For purposes of obeying the law, nothing has changed yet. For purposes of enforcing the law, I think the landscape has changed.

IANAL, so it's totally possible I got it all wrong.

ETA: Last year the CPOA put out a 'client alert' memo regarding the open carry movement. I imagine they may put out an update to warn that we now have standing to sue in a greater number of cases than their previous memo indicated.

Mike Dicta
04-29-2009, 8:39 PM
From: Martin J. Mayer, Esq., The Law Firm of Jones & Mayer

“CITIES AND COUNTIES CAN PROHIBIT GUNS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY”
On April 20, 2009, a unanimous Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled, in the case of Nordyke, et al v. King, et. al, that local governments can regulate the use of public property which, therefore, allows them to ban guns on such property, despite Second Amendment protections. Nordyke, who is the owner of a business which promotes gun shows, sued Alameda County in an effort to overturn a county ordinance which banned possession of firearms on county property, thereby effectively banning gun shows on any public property. Alameda passed the ordinance in 1999 after a man shot to death eight people at the county’s fairgrounds.
As would be expected on a matter of such constitutional significance, there were numerous amicus curiae briefs filed on both sides of this issue. The California State Sheriffs Association (CSSA), the California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA), and the California Peace Officers Association (CPOA), joined with the City of Oakland, the City and County of San Francisco, and several other organizations, in an amicus brief supporting the right of Alameda County (or any other city or county) to reasonably regulate possession of weapons on its property or in its buildings.
Second Amendment Protections
Last year, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 290, wherein the Court ruled that the Second Amendment gives to individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Prior to that decision, courts had ruled that the Second Amendment applied to a collective, such as a state militia, but not to an individual. The Heller Court, for the first time, ruled that it was, in fact, an individual right, however, the decision centered on the right to be armed in one’s own home for the purpose of self defense.
The Nordyke court stated that “we therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition,” however, the court stated, the Alameda ordinance did not interfere with that right, nor with the holding in Heller. “The ordinance before us is not of that ilk. It does not directly impede the efficacy of self-defense or limit self-defense in the home. Rather, it regulates gun possession in public places that are county property.”
Government’s Right to Regulate
In the Heller decision, after concluding that laws which ban the possession of weapons in one’s own home, or require that they be inoperable (as did the District of Columbia’s ordinance), were unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” (Emphasis added.)
The Nordyke court concluded that the Alameda “ordinance merely forbids the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, which includes the Alameda County fairgrounds and other County property.” Furthermore, the court held that “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.”
“Finally,” the court wrote, “prohibiting firearm possession on municipal property fits within the exception from the Second Amendment for “sensitive places” that Heller recognized.” Based on this finding, therefore, cities and counties can reasonably regulate the carrying of weapons on public property or in public buildings. This would be true whether or not, for example, one possesses a permit to carry a concealed weapon (CCW). The issuance of a CCW permit will not trump local government’s authority to prohibit the possession of such weapons on its own property.
The Second Amendment and Local Government
One issue left unresolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller decision was whether or not the Second Amendment applied to cities and counties through the Fourteenth Amendment, in an issue known as “incorporation.” By concluding that the right to bear arms was fundamental to the nation’s founding, the Nordyke court held that the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to local governments. ‘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.”
As such, local governments cannot pass laws, such as was done by the District of Columbia, which infringe upon that fundamental right. However, the court pointed out, “not every law which makes a right more difficult to exercise is, ipso facto, an infringement of that right.” As a result, the court stated, “we conclude that although the Second Amendment, applied through the Due Process Clause, protects a right to keep and bear arms for individual self-defense, it does not contain an entitlement to bring guns onto government property.”
HOW THIS AFFECTS YOUR AGENCY
As was articulated in the amicus brief filed on behalf of law enforcement, it is important to allow local government to reasonably regulate the possession of weapons on its property and in its buildings (including courts), in order to provide for the public’s safety. This decision gives local government that tool. At the same time, the court concluded that the Second Amendment applies to local government and, therefore, outright prohibitions on possession of weapons in one’s home, for self-defense purposes, will not be permitted.
If a city or county adopts an ordinance banning weapons from its property and/or buildings, it gives law enforcement the ability to ensure that such weapons are not allowed to be carried, even if one has been issued a CCW. This is an option afforded local government and each city and county will need to make its own decision regarding such ordinances.
As always, we urge that you confer with your agency’s own attorney for legal advice and guidance. If you wish to discuss this case in greater detail, please feel free to contact me at (714) 446 – 1400 or via e-mail at mjm@jones-mayer.com.

DDT
04-29-2009, 8:41 PM
And just how do you suppose the police will respond to this? Will they simply warn those they encounter, or will these people be arrested and have their firearms confiscated?

I was merely speculating on why CPOA might put out an alert regarding Nordyke. I have no idea what they are recommending their members do. It will be interesting to see a copy once it gets released. Someone should go see if gunslut has posted it anywhere.

obeygiant
04-29-2009, 8:45 PM
anybody got a copy? I don't.

There was a copy of it posted here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=135991)

Mike Dicta
04-29-2009, 8:49 PM
There was a copy of it posted here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=135991)

That is an old one. I posted text of the Nordyke related one above.

MudCamper
04-29-2009, 8:53 PM
There was a copy of it posted here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=135991)

No. That's an old open carry related alert.

Mike Dicta posted what looks like the alert in question a couple post up in this thread. If it's true, it's bad. They equate Heller "sensitive areas" to county property, and claim it invalidates CCW on county property, which seems to contradict how I read Nordyke...

Roadrunner
04-29-2009, 8:56 PM
It would seem that this memo from Martin Mayer, when read between the lines indicates that we as citizens have a duty to elect city and county politicians that are more receptive to the second amendment. That certainly means questioning your prospective leaders on their second amendment stance when electing members of your local city council, and guiding them to hire police chiefs that are also more receptive to the second amendment.

Mike Dicta
04-29-2009, 8:56 PM
No. That's an old open carry related alert.

Mike Dicta posted what looks like the alert in question a couple post up in this thread. If it's true, it's bad. They equate Heller "sensitive areas" to county property, and claim it invalidates CCW on county property, which seems to contradict how I read Nordyke...

There are a lot of assumptions in that ALERT. Not all of them are well founded.

obeygiant
04-29-2009, 8:59 PM
That is an old one. I posted text of the Nordyke related one above.

My bad, I read through the post but didn't pay attention to the date.

Silverback
04-29-2009, 9:04 PM
From: Martin J. Mayer, Esq., The Law Firm of Jones & Mayer

“CITIES AND COUNTIES CAN PROHIBIT GUNS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY”
.


This sound like they are encouraging cities to set up more "gun free killing zones"

DDT
04-29-2009, 9:05 PM
If a city or county adopts an ordinance banning weapons from its property and/or buildings, it gives law enforcement the ability to ensure that such weapons are not allowed to be carried, even if one has been issued a CCW. This is an option afforded local government and each city and county will need to make its own decision regarding such ordinances.

:eek: That's going to be challenged, especially if they don't enforce it against off-duty cops.

Mike Dicta
04-29-2009, 9:16 PM
One has to remember that somewhere down the road, if cities/counties declare somewhere a 'sensitive place', a legal argument may be made that if they do so they create a 'duty to protect' in such a place. If it is so sensitive, of course they see a need to secure it, no?

Roadrunner
04-29-2009, 9:24 PM
One has to remember that somewhere down the road, if cities/counties declare somewhere a 'sensitive place', a legal argument may be made that if they do so they create a 'duty to protect' in such a place. If it is so sensitive, of course they see a need to secure it, no?

Excellent point. How much will it cost a moderate size city to post police or security guards to protect their sensitive areas and the people in them?

DDT
04-29-2009, 9:33 PM
Excellent point. How much will it cost a moderate size city to post police or security guards to protect their sensitive areas and the people in them?


They'll also have to provide secure lockers for handgun storage so that people legally carrying can do business on the county property.

MudCamper
04-29-2009, 9:41 PM
One has to remember that somewhere down the road, if cities/counties declare somewhere a 'sensitive place', a legal argument may be made that if they do so they create a 'duty to protect' in such a place. If it is so sensitive, of course they see a need to secure it, no?

But that argument will have to be made, in court. And until then we're f#@ked. And even if the argument is made, it might lose.

Mike Dicta
04-29-2009, 9:59 PM
But that argument will have to be made, in court. And until then we're f#@ked. And even if the argument is made, it might lose.

Welcome to the law.

Roadrunner
04-29-2009, 10:19 PM
I think it would be prudent to identify second amendment supporters and then identify another important issue that would be more receptive to neutral or antigun voters and push for that politicians election. How difficult would that be?

HunterJim
04-30-2009, 6:32 AM
Mr. Mayer seemed not to understand that the incorporation finding recognized an important new civil right for Californians. It is instructive to compare his memo to commentaries of voting rights rulings for example.

jim

BobB35
04-30-2009, 6:42 AM
Ah yes, another memo from our "friends" at the COPA. Eventually people are going to figure out that LEO management and organizations (not the rank and file so don't get your britches in a bunch) are not on the side of gun owners.

Since the media doesn't ask for the beat cops opinion this is the type of stuff that gets picked up. Not a good situation.

It has been said before, someone should be filing case soon or others will take steps. They are going after CCW soon, why else would it be prominently placed in this memo?

socal2310
04-30-2009, 7:14 AM
If a city or county adopts an ordinance banning weapons from its property and/or buildings, it gives law enforcement the ability to ensure that such weapons are not allowed to be carried, even if one has been issued a CCW. This is an option afforded local government and each city and county will need to make its own decision regarding such ordinances.Wow. This implies that a city or county could pass an ordinance prohibiting concealed carry on all city and county property:

You have a concealed carry permit, but cannot exit your vehicle with the firearm if you have to carry across a city or county owned sidewalk. In fact, if you parked your car at the curb, you could not concealed carry across the sidewalk into your vehicle.

I somehow get the feeling that the court isn't going to see eye to eye with the CPOA...

Ryan

MudCamper
04-30-2009, 8:28 AM
Even the ordinance that the Nordykes were fighting had an exception for CCW. Yet this idiot says counties can ban CCW holders. FYI: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=177240