Replies

This rotten "ruling" by the communist Cal SC sets a precedent for the destruction of the RKBA in Cal. How? Because it opens the door wide to every little podunk city and town to simply pass ordinances to completely ban the possession of firearms in that town. This corrupt court has effectively thrown out California's pre-emption of gun laws. I advise any California Freepers who were considering the purchase of firearms this year, to do it as soon as possible.

And who do we go to, to ask for relief on a gun issue? Why, the wonderful 9th Circuit Court of Appeals! Free speech? Ha! Free Association? Right, you bet! The 9th Circus Court never saw a gun law it didn't like. The RKBA has been destroyed in Cal. It is now the PKBA - the "privilege to keep and bear arms" - and what the government giveth, the government can taketh away.

You can't operate a business in a city without a business license. Suppose a city decides to label your private firearms business a "gun show" for purposes of the business license. They can use the court ruling as a means of banning the "gun show" that is your business. Poof. All the gun shops are history. The loss of the store front then gives ATF the excuse to rescind the FFL. California once had over 10,000 FFLs. It is down to around 2,500. This ruling provides a means of reducing even further. There will be a few shops left that cater to law enforcement.

"Federal courts in California and elsewhere have already ruled that gun shows are a protected form of commercial free speech," Waldron stated. "The California Supreme Court, with this decision, has cavalierly decided that the First Amendment does not apply in the Golden State after all."

The ruling didn't address the 1st Amendment issues because the Court wasn't asked to address them. This was only about local laws on the use of public property. Nordyke, however, was a bit on the strange side. The issue there was a narrowly tailored law that had the effect of outlawing only one type of activity; gun shows. While the Court says that counties are within their rights to ban certain types of uses for public venues, this approaches the same end, but by sneaky, backdoor means. The Court seems to be leaving itself wide open to reversal there on equal protection grounds. Great Western and Nordyke could still be reversed on 1st Amendment grounds. The "Freedom of assembly" argument is a compelling one, but was not at issue before the CA Supreme Court.