[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Originally Posted by fizux

Just because it is proposed in an oral argument or a brief does not make it so.

When you argue an interpretation in a motion for summary judgment, and the court grants the motion and adopts your interpretation, it kinda does lol.

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."

When, in August 1999 before the ordinance was amended to include the secured guns exception?

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

You might want to quote what was actually said with a little more precision, and in context, i.e., answering a direct question posed by one of the panel judges who had bought into the plaintiffs' "no guns, no exception" interpretation. The county consistently argued during that hearing that the Nordykes could have guns shows with guns secured, which means, obviously, gun shows with guns present and secured if not in the immediate possession of participants.

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.

Which oral argument? It was the county that said, at the first en banc hearing, that cabling guns to the table would meet the secured guns exception. Perhaps you meant that guns cabled to the table were not acceptable to the Nordykes lol:

"The answer is no, we cannot conduct a gun show with guns tethered to the tables."

"We cannot run a gun show with guns cabled to a...to a table your honor."

If gun shows with guns cabled to tables was what the Nordykes wanted all along, that might have been an appropriate time to say so lol.

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?"

They never bothered to ask, did they? Nor did they take any initiative whatsoever to propose it. That was because it wasn't what they wanted, despite their now claiming that this was some big "win."

In 2010 the county attorney called the plaintiffs' attorney to talk about how the plaintiffs would like to secure guns at their gun shows but the plaintiffs' attorney hung up on him. This particular exchange in the briefs filed after last year's en banc hearing could not be any more embarassing.

Reality check: even when the original panel was sold on "no guns, no exception," this case was a loser. The Nordykes never wanted guns shows with guns cabled to the table, and nobody whose decision matters agreed that this was a "win."