search
top

Nordyke v. King Decided

Dave Hardy reports that the Alameda County, having previously backed down, and suggested the gun show could continue provided that the guns in question were adequately secured when on display, it looks like the 9th Circuit, en banc, has accepted that capitulation. This looks to me like mostly a win for our side, even though it could have been much better by setting strong precedent. I have not yet read through the entire opinion.

4 Responses to “Nordyke v. King Decided”

  1. terraformer says:

    …even though it could have been much better by setting strong precedent.

    I don’t think this case would have made any *good* strong precedent (nothing against the case or it’s lawyers) and the concurrences bear that out. That not a single justice in the circuit, be it via the published decision or in a concurrence, called out the county on what is an absurd reading of their ordinance is proof that the 9th will go kicking and screaming into 2A jurisprudence.

  2. pt says:

    I can only imagine the Nordyke’s legal bills after 13 years of fighting.

    All of this and then the county says “well you can attach a wire to the trigger guard to prevent someone running away with them and then gun shows are ok.”

    The Leviathan wins again

  3. Patrick says:

    I don’t think the Leviathan won.

    The Leviathan wanted to ban the show and send the Nordykes packing. They wanted no gun shows, ever. They wanted no gun anything, ever. They wanted the Federal Courts – especially the Appellate Court – to tell gun people they have no rights.

    That did not happen.

    The government put their tail between their legs and rolled over. The Ninth Circuit avoided everything they could, but spoke volumes in the words they failed to write. This is noticed nationwide. If the Ninth is afraid they cannot rule against this, then what else is there for the gun controllers?

    Nordyke is an old case and much of its legacy is pre-Heller/McDonald. That should have helped the government, but it did not.

    Let me describe my view on this in a a military analogy: we did not get written surrender from the enemy; instead we see their backs as they run away as fast as they can. It’s a win.

    Nordyke is a win because they are on the run. Post-McDonald challenges in the Ninth are more targeted. The court will not be able to avoid “the question”.

    The Ninth is going to avoid this any way they can. The Seventh, Fourth and Fifth will be more likely to rule. And don’t forget Gray’s case in the Tenth…

    Point is: if the fracking Ninth cannot tell a bunch of backward “Death Merchants” to go to hell, nobody can.

  4. Matthew Carberry says:

    Peruta, the San Diego carry case, was on hold til Nordyke was decided to see if any of the reasoning would be informative.

    Nordyke was always a little too specific in facts to to expect good general precedent. Its “value” for California and Hawaii will lie in how the legal reasoning from it effects Peruta and may-issue.

top