Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Attend the Nordyke v King En Banc Hearing the Thurs. 9-24-09

  1. #1
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Attend the hearing at 10 AM and then meet and greet at thecalgunners lunch afterward.

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=221197


    Please attend Nordyke oral arguments and post-court Lunch 9/24 10:00am


    Nordyke is being heard En Banc by the 9th at 10:00am. Please attend in your sunday best!

    UPDATE:

    The Courthouse:
    Courtroom One
    James R. Browning Courthouse
    95 Seventh Street, San Francisco, CA

    The Lunch:
    Details are later in this thread
    Or Buy Tickets Now!
    Afterword, we're hosting a celebratory lunch - the purpose of this thread is to swag headcount so here are some parameters!

    Cost: ~$40
    Time: ~noonish or after
    Location: walking distance to the courthouse in downtown SF.
    Format: long lunch, q&a panel with CGF execs and the best damn RKBA lawyers in the world.

    ARE YOU IN?! Vote in the poll!


    PS: More on the event itself soon. We're going to PACK and I mean PACK the courtrooms like we did last time. Show up in suits (no exceptions).

  2. #2
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    I'm definitely going to be there, although not in a suit since I'm riding my bicycle there and then to work afterward.

  3. #3
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Look me up at the hearing. I'll be the white guy in a suit!

  4. #4
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    Hahaha...how about you find the guy wearing rolled up jeans and a t-shirt with a giant red and white messenger bag and a helmet attached to the strap?

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Such short notice... but I'm unavoidably disposed all week anyhow. Dang, I really wish I could make it, but guess I have to miss out AGAIN!
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  6. #6
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    Hahaha...how about you find the guy wearing rolled up jeans and a t-shirt with a giant red and white messenger bag and a helmet attached to the strap?
    Wear dockers that day roll down the leg after parking, pack a collared shirt, a tie, and a nice sweater at least...please.................................... .........................

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    bigtoe416 wrote:
    Hahaha...how about you find the guy wearing rolled up jeans and a t-shirt with a giant red and white messenger bag and a helmet attached to the strap?
    Wear dockers that day roll down the leg after parking, pack a collared shirt, a tie, and a nice sweater at least...please.................................... .........................
    You won't get into federal court without a jacket and tie, anyway.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    I will be posting Twitter/Tumblr updates via my Blackberry (court allowing) for this trial.

    http://caopencarry.tumblr.com
    http://twitter.com/caopencarry

    Also, follow my friend (FS00008) as well!

    http://twitter.com/erikstern

    CARRY ON!

    -N8

  9. #9
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    The hearing is over. I got there at 9:28 and was the first person to get sent to the overflow room. Felt like the same crowd size as last time.

    Definitely more focus on incorporation this time around. There were questions for the appelants over why the Nordykes couldn't hold their shows in another venue in Alameda, why the ninth circuit should bother ruling on Nordyke if one of the other 2nd amendment cases is picked up by the SCOTUS, and how the Scottish festival is different from a gun show.

    Questions for the defendants included why they felt that the fairgrounds were a sensitive place, and why the county held a different position on the 2nd amendment than the California Attorney General.

    The defendants' counsel argued that while Lopez overturned the GFSZ act of 1995, the GFSZ act of 1997 was valid because of the extra 12 words they put in there. She also said that it was legal for participants in a gun show to openly carry a gun into a gun show. While that is technically true, you can't have the ammo for your gun on your person, and her argument was for self-defense purposes, so I felt that was a rather poor argument.

    Somebody brought up the point that in Heller the court mentioned schools and government buildings as being places which were sensitive locations. But if the second amendment doesn't apply to the states, and only prevents the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, then how would the federal government intrude on local or county property? That point was made very well and was an argument I hadn't heard before, nor had I considered.

    Overall I feel slightly optimistic.

    And for the record, you absolutely can go into a federal courthouse in jeans and a t-shirt. There isn't some suit ownership barrier to participate in public discourse. Having said that, I did wear nicer clothes since Cato is the man and I respect him.

    ETA: Another important point that was brought up was that the defendants' attorney said there is nothing preventing California from enacting a ban on the ownership of guns in one's home.

    There was also lots of talk of the common law right to self-defense. Seemed like if we can the common law right to self-defense, that we should be able to carry a firearm in an unrestricted manner (no license, no school zone restrictions, etc.).

  10. #10
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the update bigtoe!!!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    If the Nordykedecision comes out and incorporation is rejected, I'm going to think long and hard about any future participation in the Pledge of Allegiance. I have attended countless meetings of government agencies which have started with the pledge.

    I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of American ONE NATION under God INDIVISIBLE with liberty and justice for ALL.


    I never gave saying the pledge a second thought until today.

    I've been asking myselfwhy the issue was even in question and thought of all the reasons why the Constitution and Bill of Rights applied to everyone regardless of where you reside. I've been saying the pledge since grammar school and I'm now sixty years old and realize that Inever paid attention to the REAL meaning until I realized that a government agency in California is attempting to overturn the very meaning of the words.


    We live in strange times.






  12. #12
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    I thought the defense's argument was very concerning regarding the government acting as a property owner, therefore holds liability for accidents and incidents on their property. Isn't government of the people, by the people and for the people? Even in CA? Then aren't the government building's, in actuality,owned by the people? Therefore how can you limit the people's activities in their own buildings?

    This is what happens when you let lawyers lead, you end up going in circles and just getting dizzy.

    I tooliked the judge's argument regarding GFSZs. If the second isn't incorporated to the states and only applies to congress to limit their ability to control, then what gives them the authority to regulate ANY "sensitive places". Talk about handing one to us on a silver platter! Someone ought to buy that judge a cold one, or two, or three!
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  13. #13
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    And just to clarify, the defendants' argument that the federal government restricts access to school zones is patently incorrect. United States v. Lopez is not ambiguous. The ruling doesn't hold that Congress merely needs to repass the same law with a clarification of how they have the authority to restrict guns in a school zone. That possibility came up in oral arguments, but the holding of the case says nothing of the sort.

    The Lopez court held that:

    The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined. Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under the Court's cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.
    Second, §922(q) contains no jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case by case inquiry, that the firearms possession in question has the requisite nexus with interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce. To uphold the Government's contention that §922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States.

  14. #14
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    And another thought regarding "sensitive places"...is there any place more "sensitive" than one's own home? And is not one's own home "a family affair"?

    You gotta love PC speech! It's so full of hypocrisy! It would be really funny if it weren't so serious.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    And for the record, you absolutely can go into a federal courthouse in jeans and a t-shirt. There isn't some suit ownership barrier to participate in public discourse.
    I should have considered different rules for different districts and circuits. In the Eastern District of Texas, you absolutely cannot attend court, whether a party, juror, or spectator, without wearing a jacket and tie.

    There is no "suit ownership barrier" -- the CSOs have a rack full of nasty old polyester blazers and ties that they'll happily loan you.

  16. #16
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    I should have considered different rules for different districts and circuits. In the Eastern District of Texas, you absolutely cannot attend court, whether a party, juror, or spectator, without wearing a jacket and tie.

    There is no "suit ownership barrier" -- the CSOs have a rack full of nasty old polyester blazers and ties that they'll happily loan you.
    Haha! That's awesome. I'm rather glad that isn't the case here, I have a feeling wearing a sweaty t-shirt under a nasty polyester blazer would be a rather horrifying experience.

  17. #17
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    The ruling on this case is on hold until the SCOTUS says whether or not they will grant certiorari on one of the other incorporation cases. The conference for cert for the Chicago case is on Tuesday.

    Discussion: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=225435
    Court order: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Nor...2009-09-24.pdf

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    204

    Post imported post

    ETA: Another important point that was brought up was that the defendants' attorney said there is nothing preventing California from enacting a ban on the ownership of guns in one's home.
    I just started feeling dizzy after reading this one. Or did I read it wrongly. Can somebody please tell me what this argument means?

  19. #19
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    I disagree that there is nothing preventing the state from enacting a ban of firearms in one's home; they wouldn't dare try to enforce it. Μολὼν λαβ*.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  20. #20
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    The Supreme Court has granted writ of certiorari for McDonald v. Chicago, which is represented by Gura, who successfully argued the Heller case.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-t...terrorism-law/

    Incorporation is (hopefully) now just a matter of time, which I feel warrants a banana. :celebrate

Posting Permissions

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