View Single Post
Old 02-01-2011, 9:25 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%

Originally Posted by Sureshot357 View Post
OK, I don't understand the "lie" part. Isn't their policy, their policy?
No, it isn't. They are not in compliance with Guillory v. Gates, and they're using Peruta to guard themselves.

When does Nordyke get done and I thought that was a gun show thing.
Excuse my ignorance.
Well, if you're willing to listen for a few hours to something and read a few opinions, let's get educated.

Nordyke I Oral Argument. Occured 1/15/2009

Nordyke I decision Occured 04/20/2009. Used intermediate scrutiny and declared 2A's application to state and local government, but said Alameda's ban on gun shows did not violate 2A, used weak intermediate scrutiny test.

Nordyke went en banc in July 2009.

Nordyke en banc ruling

Then another oral argument happened en banc on September 24th, 2009:

Nordyke II (en banc) oral argument

Post-McDonald, the Nordyke en banc panel released Nordyke en banc order remanding back to 3 judge panel

Then, Nordyke 3 judge panel reheard oral arguments again (Nordyke III): Nordyke III oral arguments

Legend for scrutiny:

Rational Basis=bad for us
Intermediate Scrutiny=better for us, but not best.
Strict Scrutiny=Best for us.

See also a sister case in the 4th Circuit (East Coast)

United States v. Chester


Although Chester asserts his right to possess a firearm in
his home for the purpose of self-defense, we believe his claim
is not within the core right identified in Heller—the right of
a law-abiding, responsible citizen to possess and carry a
weapon for self-defense—by virtue of Chester’s criminal history as a domestic violence misdemeanant. Heller, 128 S. Ct.
at 2821. Accordingly, we conclude that intermediate scrutiny
is more appropriate than strict scrutiny for Chester and similarly
situated persons.

This was cited to the Nordyke 3 judge panel in what's called a supplemental authorities letter, aka a 28(j) letter. A sister circuit is considered pursuasive authority.

If we get language that says "strict scrutiny" for law abiding citizens in Nordyke, it'll overturn the Peruta district court decision (it used weak intermediate and declared no right existed outside of home).

Nordyke isn't purely a "gun show" case. It was the Nordyke I decision which caused the safe handgun roster challenge (Peņa v. Cid) and the carry challenge (Sykes and now Richards) to go forward, despite the fact that gun show lost.

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 02-01-2011 at 9:35 AM..
Reply With Quote