Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: County Blinks in Nordyke showdown

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    County Blinks in Nordyke showdown

    VICTORY! (of a sorts)

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    I watched the oral arguments video. Basically, the case is now muted. There is no point on a ruling on any Constitutional question. There only remains the details of a stipulation to be agreed on by both parties.

    I sure hope that the Nordykes are awarded costs for having to litigate unnecessarily for over a decade.

    Apparently, the County 'blinked' and an alert justice seized the opportunity to force an agreement by both sides that yes indeed, the Nordykes could have their Gun Shows after all. The Nordyke attorney didn't really 'concede' much, he was just annoyed that the County is just now claiming that their ordinance never really was a ban, although obviously he was reluctant to accept the stipulation that the gun tethering be mandatory.

    As the Nordyke's attorney pointed out, many gun sellers already tether their firearms to the table via a thin cable, so it is really a loss of face for the County to implement a 'ban', call it a 'ban', represent their ordinance in the early stages of litigation as a 'ban', then finally admit in Court that the ordinance really wasn't a 'ban' after all. The only 'face-saving' argument the County's attorney could offer was that they 'hinted' somehow in their filings that Gun Shows 'might' be allowed under the ordinance as far back as 2008 (but the Attorney could not really specify how or why).

    There were many other cases on 'hold' pending the outcome of this case, so now they can proceed.
    Last edited by OC4me; 03-20-2012 at 06:14 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by Phssthpok View Post
    VICTORY! (of a sorts)

    Victory?

    I think the best description is a tactical tie and a strategic loss for us.

    Our side expended too much effort and capital to end-up with a stipulated agreement that will not be wet-signed for another two years. The antis will drag their feet for years. Too many other cases were put on hold "pending Nordyke."

    Our side needs to collect litigation costs for this one.

    The antis know that they are at a bifurcation point. Either a challenger beats Obama on November 6th, and what few gun rights we have left are preserved, or Obama wins and starts to rule under the Executive Orders that he has put in place, and civil liberties will be extinguished, including 2A.

    markm

  4. #4
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkBofRAdvocate View Post
    Victory?

    I think the best description is a tactical tie and a strategic loss for us.
    I disagree. While this isnt the outcome that the Nordykes were hoping for and this does allow for gun shows to continue- it also frees up cases that have been pending the outcome (5 if I my recollection is accurate). One of them is a carry case that will have an long lasting effect on carry in California.

    Tactically, Alameda's eleventh hour 'concession' of cables 'securing' firearms at the fairgrounds was tantamount to sacrificing a bishop to protect the queen. I think it demonstrates that there was a detectable threshhold where they knew that not compromising in Nordyke would ensure losses that are unacceptable (Not the least of which would be gun free school zones) to the gun policy making machine in California.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    I disagree. While this isnt the outcome that the Nordykes were hoping for and this does allow for gun shows to continue- it also frees up cases that have been pending the outcome (5 if I my recollection is accurate). One of them is a carry case that will have an long lasting effect on carry in California.

    Tactically, Alameda's eleventh hour 'concession' of cables 'securing' firearms at the fairgrounds was tantamount to sacrificing a bishop to protect the queen. I think it demonstrates that there was a detectable threshhold where they knew that not compromising in Nordyke would ensure losses that are unacceptable (Not the least of which would be gun free school zones) to the gun policy making machine in California.
    Hey Condition Three,

    I respect your opinion and I hope your are correct!

    markm

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •