"In a concurring opinion, Judge Parker wrote that the majority's detailed exposition of the Second Amendment individual right, while not necessarily wrong, was irrelevant "dicta." In other words, because the statute (as applied to Emerson) didn't violate the Second Amendment anyway, it didn't matter if there was an individual Second Amendment right, and therefore the Court should not have discussed the Second Amendment so extensively. In Parker's view, the majority's Second Amendment analysis is not even binding law on future courts within the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi)."
"The majority opinion, however, specifically refuted Parker on this point, and said that the Second Amendment ruling was very much part of Emerson holding. Indeed, the Brady Center acknowledged that courts in the Fifth Circuit would now adhere to individual Second Amendment rights, although it also pointed out, quite correctly, that courts in other Circuits do not have to."
Well, future cases will decide who's correct.
Do you think that Nordyke is a good second amendment case? Denying a gun show on county fairgrounds is a second amendment violation?
The second amendment only applies to the federal government -- it hasn't been incorporated (yet). This was pointed out by the 9th Circuit (in a footnote) in Nordyke v King.
The USSC won't hear this.
The county of Santa Clara already tried to screw Russ and Sally by simply banning gun shows on county fairgrounds. The county failed in that attempt, under a First Amendment commercial free speech argument, as I recall, and had to pay Russ & Sally's legal fees.
Whacked there, the anti-gun-show mole popped up again in two other counties - in Alameda their ordinance banned possession of firearms on county property, with the specific goal in mind of shutting down gun shows. Nevermind that county prison guards are not exempt, and violate the ordinance every time they check out a shotgun for prisoner transport - the county's goal was to shut down the gun show and drive Russ & Sally into bankruptcy, and that's what they've managed to do so far.
It's the fact that the county has banned possession of firearms which wound up bringing in the Second Amendment issue. In fact, it was a judge on the case who first put it into play - the case was originally intended to follow the winning First Amendment strategy from Santa Clara County.
I suspect that if the SCOTUS is inclined to take a Second Amendment case, this would be a good one - no criminals involved, and the only thing they'd have to overturn is a poorly-written county ordinance spoon-fed to the commissioners by the LCAV, rather than an enormous regulatory structure duly enacted by the California legislature as in the Silveira case.
We shall see.