If local ordinances are preempted, then why did the 9th circuit court not say this in Nordyke v. King? The Alameda County ordinance made it a misdemeanor to bring onto or to possess a firearm or ammunition on County property. Seems very similar to the Orange ordinance. In the Nordyke v. King decision, the court said,
only applies to concealed weapons.
The other statute, 12.48.050
clearly violates a person's RKBA as it designates all parks in orange as "prohibited areas" for possession. This means you can only carry or keep a firearm there with a concealed weapons permit.
A handgun is a "concealable" weapon per 12025...thus, 9.32.010 means that you cannot carry a handgun in the city of Orange.
But the original poster's question was whether these local ordinances are preempted - I think they are, but have no case to cite to on point.
I would be very careful to consider this case before you decide to open carry in violation of a city/county park ordinance.There are "safer" places to open carry.
"But the Ordinance before us is not of that ilk. It does not directly impede the efficacy of self-defense or limit self-defense in the home. Rather, it regulates gun possession in public places that are County property...
The County argues that its Ordinance merely forbids the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, which includes the Alameda County fairgrounds and other County property...
To summarize: the Ordinance does not meaningfully impede the ability of individuals to defend themselves in their homes with usable firearms, the core of the right as Heller analyzed it. The Ordinance falls on the lawful side of the division, familiar from other areas of substantive due process doctrine, between unconstitutional interference with individual rights and permissible government nonfacilitation of their exercise. Finally, prohibiting firearm possession on municipal property fits within the exception from the Second Amendment for "sensitive places" that Heller recognized. These considerations compel us to conclude that the Second Amendment does not invalidate the specific Ordinance before us."