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.).
