Nordyke v King

imported post

Any news / update on the Nordyke / Alameda case? Anybody? Here's hoping 2A incorporation is in the horizon.

imported post

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Nordyke_v._King

Since they have the briefs the court could choose to rule without an oral argument. In any event, a ruling could be issued anytime inthe next 4 or 5months.

imported post

cato wrote:

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Nordyke_v._King

Since they have the briefs the court could choose to rule without an oral argument. In any event, a ruling could be issued anytime inthe next 4 or 5months.

Click to expand...

I was wondering about that. In fact, the court already heard oral arguments the first time it ruled on Nordyke. The case is simply being reheard after the Heller ruling.

imported post

And to think...when originally asked to not OC I was told then (4 months ago) that they expected a result in 6 months. . .

Good thing I decided to OC again!

imported post

Theseus wrote:

And to think...when originally asked to not OC I was told then (4 months ago) that they expected a result in 6 months. . .

Click to expand...

To my knowledge, this is still correct. Since the rehearing was originally announced, the decision was anticipated to come in January. I would be surprised if we got the decision any later than that. I expect we may see a decision as soon as December.

Of course, this is just my novice opinion of what I hear from people in the know.

In any case, be ready for the impending celebratory open carry gatherings.

imported post

Theseus wrote:

And to think...when originally asked to not OC I was told then (4 months ago) that they expected a result in 6 months. . .

Good thing I decided to OC again!

Click to expand...

I think you should OC all the time. The OC hiatus was IMO more a showing of solidarity and good faith relationship buildingon our part with our coalition friends atCalgunswho have a successful track record of holding the line in CA on 2A issues andhave neutered the State's AW law though skillful (and entertaining)maneuvering. And they very strongly backed with $$$$$our UOC arrestees and are still backing one of them.

4/5 months for results from the three judge panel was only said because if I said 2 months and it took 3, I wouldn't be wrong. Also keep in mind that any effect Nordyke will have can be delayed if it is appealed to the full 9th Circuit (the circuit may likely still passbut even that decisionmay take months)or to SCOTUS (add two years if cert. is granted).

UOC isstill likely with us for years. I think a challenge to 12050 LTCs "good cause" will be one of the first cases out of the starting block following incorporation. If "good cause" supported by Heller/Nordyke can be found to be "self defense" then we get basically shall issue in CA. Or the courts could say that NO the state can set whatever requirentsit wants even a ban, as CC is not protected by 2A,because people have the right to LOC (we still get what we want - then watch out for the "Defense Walks"). The "walks" I think willbegin regardless after Nordyke even if it is only pushed on the forums.


I'm an OC to the max proponent (I do believe it isthe superior carry methodgenerally) but shall issue CCW will help more in the short term to be safer. I'll still back UOC even after that success as it is needed to promote carryissues in order to eventually get LOC (the Right)and show that normal people own and carry lawfully and are not to be fearedover mere possession.


Patrick Henry

imported post

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=71

Nordyke oral arguments are now scheduled for Jan. 15th, 2008.

Andthe time frame for a decision is4 months to a year from now.

imported post

I'm an OC to the max proponent (I do believe it isthe superior carry methodgenerally) but shall issue CCW will help more in the short term to be safer. I'll still back UOC even after that success as it is needed to promote carryissues in order to eventually get LOC (the Right)and show that normal people own and carry lawfully and are not to be fearedover mere possession.

Click to expand...

Shall issue would be incredible. :celebrate

Would this apply to every county?
It's nearly impossible to get a CCW here in Santa Clara unless you've got a restraining order, know the sherriff personally or handle money late at night on the wrong side of the tracks...Even then you need a damn good lawyer with a bullet proof reason from what I understand. I could be wrong.
I know it's not the same for other counties in the state. Forgive my ignorance on this, I'm not a lawyer.

imported post

Cass wrote:

I'm an OC to the max proponent (I do believe it isthe superior carry methodgenerally) but shall issue CCW will help more in the short term to be safer. I'll still back UOC even after that success as it is needed to promote carryissues in order to eventually get LOC (the Right)and show that normal people own and carry lawfully and are not to be fearedover mere possession.

Click to expand...

Shall issue would be incredible. :celebrate

Would this apply to every county?
It's nearly impossible to get a CCW here in Santa Clara unless you've got a restraining order, know the sherriff personally or handle money late at night on the wrong side of the tracks...Even then you need a damn good lawyer with a bullet proof reason from what I understand. I could be wrong.
I know it's not the same for other counties in the state. Forgive my ignorance on this, I'm not a lawyer.

Click to expand...

Will "what" apply? This is gun show case in federal court - the decision will not bind the state courts of California anyway.

imported post

Mike wrote:

Cass wrote:

I'm an OC to the max proponent (I do believe it isthe superior carry methodgenerally) but shall issue CCW will help more in the short term to be safer. I'll still back UOC even after that success as it is needed to promote carryissues in order to eventually get LOC (the Right)and show that normal people own and carry lawfully and are not to be fearedover mere possession.

Click to expand...

Shall issue would be incredible. :celebrate

Would this apply to every county?
It's nearly impossible to get a CCW here in Santa Clara unless you've got a restraining order, know the sherriff personally or handle money late at night on the wrong side of the tracks...Even then you need a damn good lawyer with a bullet proof reason from what I understand. I could be wrong.
I know it's not the same for other counties in the state. Forgive my ignorance on this, I'm not a lawyer.

Click to expand...

Will "what" apply? This is gun show case in federal court - the decision will not bind the state courts of California anyway.

Click to expand...

This is a case that has worked its way through the California Courts and has been appealed up to the Federal Court level.

Nordyke was previously thrown out due to a previous California case where the decision had been made that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right and not a personal right.

Nordyke will be binding upon the California Courts because it is going to determine whether or this previouscaseis overturned by Heller.

If this previous case is overturned, it will mean incorporation of the 2nd Amendment not only within California but within all of the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit court.

This will pave the way for many more of California gun laws to be challenged and overturned.

imported post

My apologies for not being acutely specific in my speech.

By 'This' I mean the Nordyke / Alameda case that is the subject of this thread. I was curious about the implications of this for my county of residence if this scenario described in the previous threads comes to pass.

This has nothing to do with the 'gun show' loop-hole, nor was that even mentioned any where in this thread. :?

imported post

Mike wrote:

Will "what" apply? This is gun show case in federal court - the decision will not bind the state courts of California anyway.

Click to expand...

Incorporation of the 2nd A. by the 9th Circuit against a politicalsubdivision of the State of California won't effect CA Courts?

I see CA Courts apply the 4th Amendment all the time. As a state officer I am bound by the 4th when I seek to enforce State law. The 5th & 6thA'sarerecognized by and bindstate courts every day. State law cannot violate the 1st A. How will a state not be effected by an incorporated 2nd A.?

I don't see where you are coming from Mike. Spell it out forthis LeftCoaster.

imported post

The California constitution declares the US Constitution to be the supreme law of the land. The only reason we ignore the 2nd amendment is because it currently only applies to the Federal government. Nordyke will reverse this, and thus our state constitution will automatically make the 2nd amendment binding as soon as its recognized to apply to entities other than just the Federal government.

imported post

But can the court rule for incorporation but still rule against Nordyke?

From what I see, incorporation will be a slam dunk at some point, but the actual underlying Nordyke case is not nearly as good as the Heller or Chicago cases.

imported post

press1280 wrote:

But can the court rule for incorporation but still rule against Nordyke?

From what I see, incorporation will be a slam dunk at some point, but the actual underlying Nordyke case is not nearly as good as the Heller or Chicago cases.

Click to expand...

That could be a possibility. In my layman's understanding, the Nordyke case didn't make it last time due to an arguement that the 2nd Amendment rights of Nordyke had been violated, and then the court said "No, this other California case ruled that2A is a collective right, not an individual right." If the court agrees that Heller overturns that previous 2A collective right ruling, but later rules against Nordyke for other reasoning, I think 2A would be still be incorporated.

I am not a lawyer and my reasoning might not be the way the court system actually works, as I have tried to apply logic where historically there seems to be a lack thereof.

imported post

Actually, they were originally arguing the case on preemption and 1st amendment grounds. The court ruled that gun shows are not inherently a form of speech, and are not preempted by state law. However, the court also outlined its disfavor of the precedent that lead to this decision, hence the appeal post-Heller.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Nordyke_v._King

imported post

press1280 wrote:

But can the court rule for incorporation but still rule against Nordyke?

From what I see, incorporation will be a slam dunk at some point, but the actual underlying Nordyke case is not nearly as good as the Heller or Chicago cases.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant for us. Even if this were to occur, incorporation would still stand, regardless of the resolution of the gun show issue.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Actually, they were originally arguing the case on preemption and 1st amendment grounds. The court ruled that gun shows are not inherently a form of speech, and are not preempted by state law. However, the court also outlined its disfavor of the precedent that lead to this decision, hence the appeal post-Heller.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Nordyke_v._King

Click to expand...

I was only addressing the 2nd Amendment part, not the 1st Amendment argument.

"The Ninth Circuit panel then turned to the merits of the Nordyke's First and Second Amendment claims. The panel held that on motion for permanent injunction, the Nordykes did not prevail in their first amendment claims. The court also rejected Nordyke's Second Amendment claims citing binding precedent from Hickman that only states have standing to bring Second Amendment claims. However, the panel strongly suggested (and Gould's concurrence stated plainly) that it did not believe that the previous Second Amendment rulings in Hickman and Silveira were good law. The case returned to Judge Jenkins."

If the Ninth Circuit overturns Hickman and Silveira based upon Heller, yet fails to rule in Nordyke's favor, as I see it,the 2nd Amendment will still have attained incorporation.

But as I said before I am not a lawyer.

imported post

I guess I didn't read what you wrote carefully enough.

However, it is worth noting the phrasing, "only states have standing"; the Nordykes weren't able to make the case a second amendment issue (due to lack of standing) until the court itself brought it up. So, they did make the second amendment claim (once the court brought it up, circumventing the problem with standing), but it was always secondary to their first amendment and preemption arguments.

imported post

cato wrote:

Mike wrote:

Will "what" apply? This is gun show case in federal court - the decision will not bind the state courts of California anyway.

Click to expand...

Incorporation of the 2nd A. by the 9th Circuit against a politicalsubdivision of the State of California won't effect CA Courts?

I see CA Courts apply the 4th Amendment all the time. As a state officer I am bound by the 4th when I seek to enforce State law. The 5th & 6thA'sarerecognized by and bindstate courts every day. State law cannot violate the 1st A. How will a state not be effected by an incorporated 2nd A.?

I don't see where you are coming from Mike. Spell it out forthis LeftCoaster.

Click to expand...

State courts are bound on federal questions only by the U.S. Supreme Courts, not any lower court. Obviously, a 9th Cir. holding would provide persuasive authority though, esp. in light of Heller at v.23. Federal district courts would be bound by the Nordyke panel decision unless overrtuled by an en banc 9th Cir. panel or the US S. Ct.