I think the ordinance was valid.
No matter how broadly you want to interpret the 2A, you do not have an inherent right to sell firearms on county property, just like you don’t have a right to set up a hot dog stand on the White House lawn.
OTOH, incorporation is a big, big, deal.
I personally think that the court overreached by saying the fairground is a sensitive area, and if the Nordykes can go back and find that the county allows other people to sell other things at the fairground, they can duke out the sensitive area part of the ruling. Which they may even win.
Exactly; this was not a case involving laws that inhibited self-defense like Heller was.
It also looks like the "collective" interpretation of the 2nd is kaput. The court basically acknowledged, in no uncertain terms, that previous opinions of theirs on the subject have been rendered junk by Heller.
Unless hamburger stands were allowed, and pizza stands, and waffle stands, and taco stands... and the only type of vendor NOT allowed is your hot dog stand.
There's a legal term for this, having to do with equal treatment under the law...
That's a straw man.
If the county allows other shows on county property, then it cannot discriminate just because they are girly men and guns give them the willies. If the county would like to simply close down all affected facilities to public access, that might be permissible, but they can't just pick and choose which legal products they will allow.
But if, for example, gay people conduct festivals or whatever on county property where they sell their various gay perversions, then why would equal protection under the law be a factor?
No matter how you slice it or dice it, the counties ban is there because they don’t like guns and they don’t like gun people.
I am certain that if the history of all fatalities on county property was examined, they would find far more people dying from traffic accidents than guns - but we don’t hear a peep about the county banning cars.