View Single Post
  #53  
Old 01-09-2013, 12:06 PM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Not at all. Refer to the laundry list here.

Strangely, the plaintiffs never argued "gun shows ok with guns secured," they appealed that very determination in 2007, and fought that interpretation to the bitter end lol. If they really wanted gun shows with guns secured, this case could have been over 13 years ago with a simple declaratory relief action. This was a farce and collossal waste of judicial resources IMO.
Just because it is proposed in an oral argument or a brief does not make it so. Despite your laundry list, Alameda County's implementation of their ordinance did not allow the Nordyke's to reserve the fairgrounds unless they agreed that the gun show would take place with "no guns present." They argued on January 15, 2009, that the actual transfer of firearms could take place off county property, which of course violates the requirement that transfers take place on premises or at licensed gun shows. It is common practice to cable guns to the table at quite a few gun shows that I have attended, but that was not acceptable to Alameda until after the oral argument.

For instance, if an attorney representing an official of the State of California indicates in oral argument that part of the "very meaningful" ability to exercise 2nd amendment rights includes the right to carry on private property that I own or have permission of the owner, does that suddenly mean I can carry in publicly accessible private property like my front yard, or in HOA common areas where I am a part owner, or a parking lot with permission?

Your position necessarily eliminates all "as applied" challenges, because the challenged ordinance/statute could be applied in a constitutional manner; however, we should disregard that it is applied unconstitutionally in practice until after the oral argument.

It is unrealistic to imposing some sort of requirement that Plaintiff should have somehow divined that cables would be acceptable in light of Alameda's position that nothing short of "off site" was acceptable in practice. Even if they had asked that exact particular question, the response in 2007 would have been something similar to "what part of 'NO' don't you understand?"
Reply With Quote