Replies

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/839191/posts#26

She penned a dissenting opinion in the ruling in the Nordyke v. King and Great Western Shows v. Los Angeles cases in 2002:
=====
Alameda County might be able to prohibit gun shows on county property, assuming the property is located within the geographic boundaries of the county and subject to the county' s regulatory jurisdiction. (Cf. Great Western Shows, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (Apr. 22, 2002, S091547) __ Cal.4th ___, ___ [pp. 4-18].) But the county did not enact a prohibition against gun shows. Instead, the county prohibited, with limited exceptions, the possession of firearms on county property. (Alameda County Gen. Ord. Code, ch. 9.12, § 9.12.120; see maj. opn., ante, at p. 2.) That prohibition conflicts with several state statutes that expressly authorize certain persons to carry firearms without restriction as to place. (See, e.g., Pen. Code, § § 831.4, subd. (b), 830.9, 831.6, subd. (b), 12027, subd. (i) [provisions authorizing non-peace officers to carry firearms in certain circumstances]; see also id., § § 12031, 12050, 12051 [provisions authorizing licensed persons to possess loaded and/or concealable firearms].) Nothing in state law suggests that these authorizations to carry or possess firearms under certain circumstances are subject to local restrictions, and if they were, then a person authorized to carry firearms who happened to be traveling across the state would have to consult legal counsel each time he or she crossed a county line or entered a city, a rule that seems neither practical nor intended by the Legislature. (See Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 4 Cal.4th 893, 898.)
[...cont...]
In short, we consider here a local restriction on firearm possession that directly conflicts with state law. The majority seeks to avoid the obvious preemption problem by the expedient of rewriting the ordinance to prohibit gun shows instead of gun possession. Alameda County might have enacted an ordinance prohibiting gun shows, but it did not, and the ordinance it did enact exceeds its regulatory authority.
=====

She was the only one of the justices to pay any attention to the pivotal argument on implied preemption made by Nordyke attorney Donald Kilmer.