Posted on 04/20/2009 5:19:58 PM PDT by !1776!
I spoke too soon in the excitement of the moment, I didn’t realize that while winning on incorporation, they lost on the discrimination issue.
Sally King said exactly that. She made no bones about it. It was her vituperative anti-gun bigotry which made Don Kilmer decide to name her as the first plaintiff, rather than the County of Alameda - so that her name and her shameful bigotry would go down in history.
From the opinion, page 4471:
But the Nordykes insist that something more sinister was afoot. They point to some of King’s other statements as evidence that she actually intended to drive the gun shows out of Alameda County. Shortly before proposing the Ordinance, King sent a memorandum to the County Counsel asking him to research “the most appropriate way” she might “prohibit the gun shows” on County property. King declared she had “been trying to get rid of gun shows on Country property” for “about three years,” but she had “gotten the run around from spineless people hiding behind the constitution, and been attacked by aggressive gun toting mobs on right wing talk radio.” At her press conference, King also said that the County should not “provide a place for people to display guns for worship as deities for the collectors who treat them as icons of patriotism.”
{applause}
I cannot believe the 9th Circuit actually incorporated the 2nd Amendment. I hope SCOTUS actually upholds that aspect of this decision!
This bears repeating.
But that's not what the Nordykes argued their case on. On page 31 of the decision you find this:
The Nordykes counter that the Ordinance indirectly burdens effective, armed self-defense because it makes it more difficult to purchase guns.
It was a stretch. Now that it's been determined that guns are a legal, legitimate means of self-defense as recognized by the 2nd Amendment, and since the county under this ruling must now respect the 2nd Amendment as the supreme rule, the Nordykes might get somewhere by filing a discrimination lawsuit.
I blame my keyboard (and the short between my chair and computer).
It is even better than that. If you read the decision carefully, you will discover that one of the judges actually gives them some direction on what he thinks a winning argument might be.
Before the incorporation ruling, they couldn't bring this argument, but now they can.
I believe they are $35 annually. Less for paying multiple years up front, etc.
bump
Whether or not the NRA has had anything to do with this case is largely irrelevant to the role they play defending the 2nd Amendment across the nation.
Please advise regarding an organization that has more influence and done more to protect, defend, and make progress toward realizing the the true recognition of the right contained in the 2nd Amendment.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but it does bug me when people marginalize a highly effective organization because such organization didn't do exactly what they wanted, how they wanted, and when they wanted.
Personal opinion of course...
the final judgment upheld the ordinance. it was not necessary to incorporate the second to uphold the ordinance.
how about obiter dicta ?
I had to be the smartass that nailed somebody the first time on that in one thread or another.
I believe you refer to a PEBKAC in your parenthetical.
No worries though, an easy mistake to make :)
Look, I know I sound flippant.
Sorry; I just have no respect for the 9th. Really it seems unclear to me in some respects.
However, and I guess this is a big maybe that I’m wrong about it being dicta,the reversal of the trial court’s refusal to permit an amendment to the complaint does raise incorporation as maybe necessary to the decision and hence not dicta. Maybe it gets down to Heller’s rejection of “collective.”
I know I wrote “maybe” too often here, but these are not easy issues for me.
I hope it’s not dicta obviously.
That would be because the calif. precedent upon which the court no doubt would otherwise have relied was clearly reversed by Heller.
The NRA supported the 1934, 1968, and 1986 victim disarmament acts. There is a lot of good stuff they do, but they’ve been so incredibly wimpy on the legal fronts that it’s not even funny. for decades they’ve been terrified that the supreme court could rule against them, so they’ve really not pushed the 2nd in the courts the way it should have been. They appear to be on the bandwagon now, but I don’t have a lot of faith in their fidelity.
Understood.
On the supreme court issue - Heller went 5-4. That's 1 vote from very serious problems. While I agree with you and want to win on every front at every battle, I also understand that there is a need to make sure you are in a fight you can win.
Probably where the flinch comes from (in addition to litigation being expensive).
5-4 is absurd to me on this issue, but it is what it is. If it had played out 4-5 I'm not sure what the next step would be.
It is sickening that this is even an issue open for debate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.