C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
Ive never liked the Nordyke case, I always thought it a distraction from actual Second Amendment issues. Indeed, this case did not originally begin as a Second Amendment complaint.
The case involves the prohibition of gun shows on property owned by Alameda County, California. The problem is arguing against such a prohibition is a tough sell as an avid Second Amendment supporter Ill concede not allowing gun shows doesnt necessarily constitute an undue burden on ones right to obtain and own a firearm.
Consequently, perhaps, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 20th ruled that any law such as the one banning gun shows should be subject to a substantial burden review, making it somewhat easier for jurisdictions to enact a similar restriction. Problem: will this establish a standard by which other more deserving gun restriction ordinances are evaluated?
I believe that any law designed to preempt, restrict, or otherwise curtail any right enumerated in the Bill of Rights should be subject to strict scrutiny, the highest standard of judicial review - including the Second Amendment right to self defense.
I believe the following provisions are un-Constitutional: open carry bans, bans/restrictions on firearms based solely on cosmetic appearance or configuration, magazine capacity or design, restrictions on the number of firearms purchased during a given time period, waiting periods, instruction requirements, license and permit requirements, and any type of registration.
Also, many restrictions on firearms are based on ignorance, which is indeed frustrating banning a weapon simply because it has a pistol grip or detachable magazine is idiotic.
Needless to say Nordyke, et al., v. King, et al. is far from over, but I see this disappointing and potentially problematic ruling more the fault of the plaintiffs-appellants than the panel.
The ruing for those interested:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/05/02/07-15763.pdf
The case involves the prohibition of gun shows on property owned by Alameda County, California. The problem is arguing against such a prohibition is a tough sell as an avid Second Amendment supporter Ill concede not allowing gun shows doesnt necessarily constitute an undue burden on ones right to obtain and own a firearm.
Consequently, perhaps, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 20th ruled that any law such as the one banning gun shows should be subject to a substantial burden review, making it somewhat easier for jurisdictions to enact a similar restriction. Problem: will this establish a standard by which other more deserving gun restriction ordinances are evaluated?
I believe that any law designed to preempt, restrict, or otherwise curtail any right enumerated in the Bill of Rights should be subject to strict scrutiny, the highest standard of judicial review - including the Second Amendment right to self defense.
I believe the following provisions are un-Constitutional: open carry bans, bans/restrictions on firearms based solely on cosmetic appearance or configuration, magazine capacity or design, restrictions on the number of firearms purchased during a given time period, waiting periods, instruction requirements, license and permit requirements, and any type of registration.
Also, many restrictions on firearms are based on ignorance, which is indeed frustrating banning a weapon simply because it has a pistol grip or detachable magazine is idiotic.
Needless to say Nordyke, et al., v. King, et al. is far from over, but I see this disappointing and potentially problematic ruling more the fault of the plaintiffs-appellants than the panel.
The ruing for those interested:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/05/02/07-15763.pdf