Figures. 9th "fucking" Court of Appeals, again.


www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1726~2446909,00.html

High court rejects suit on gun ban

Alameda County can keep weapons show from using fairgrounds

By Josh Richman, STAFF WRITER

Alameda County won a final victory Monday in defense of its ordinance banning gun shows at its fairgrounds, as the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take the case.

The high court's refusal means the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling, which rejected show promoters' arguments that their First and Second Amendment rights were being violated, will stand. San Mateo, Marin and Los Angeles counties have adopted ordinances similar to Alameda County's, and Monday's milestone could invite more counties to do the same.

But although San Jose attorney Donald Kilmer, who represented gun show owners Russell and Sallie Nordyke of Willows in their lawsuit against Alameda County, said his clients are disappointed by the high court's rejection, "the case is still alive."

The 9th Circuit's ruling had rejected the Nordykes' "facial" challenge to the law before it's applied to them but had said they could challenge it again once it actually kept them from exercising what they believe are their rights. Kilmer said they'll do so and have a status conference scheduled today in federal court in San Francisco.

"He's grasping at footnotes," said Alameda County Counsel Richard Winnie. "We never regarded this as a Second Amendment case. We regretted when the National Rifle Association and others became so obsessed with it. This is a simple case about the right of the public to protect public space."

The Nordykes, doing business as TS Trade Shows, promoted gun shows at the Alameda County Fairgrounds in Pleasanton from 1991 until 1999, when county supervisors adopted an ordinance making illegal the possession of firearms on county property. The ordinance came in response to a 1998 fairgrounds shooting in which eight people were wounded.

The Nordykes sued in federal court, but U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins of San Francisco refused to issue an injunction against the law. Among the Nordykes' claims was that the ordinance was pre-empted by state gun laws, so the 9th Circuit appeals court in 2000 asked the California Supreme Court to rule on that; the state's high court found no such conflict. In February 2003, the 9th Circuit upheld Jenkins' ruling.

"We conclude that a gun itself is not speech," wrote Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain. "Someone has to do something with the symbol before it can be speech. ... Typically a person possessing a gun has no intent to convey a particular message, nor is any particular message likely to be understood by those who view it."

And, he wrote, "we have squarely held that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective right for the states to maintain an armed militia and offers no protection for the individual's right to bear arms."

The 9th Circuit's ruling was based on a ruling it made in 2002 upholding California's ban on assault weapons, in which it concluded the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the states to maintain armed militias but does not grant individuals the right to bear arms. The U.S. Supreme Court refused that case last ye

Quoted: And, he wrote, "we have squarely held that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective right for the states to maintain an armed militia and offers no protection for the individual's right to bear arms."

I'm not a smart man, but....

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

That seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Quoted: Quoted: And, he wrote, "we have squarely held that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective right for the states to maintain an armed militia and offers no protection for the individual's right to bear arms." I'm not a smart man, but.... A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. That seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Its too logical to make sense.  Thats why we have politicians and lawyers to make sense of this stuff for us feeble minded slobs.

"We conclude that a gun itself is not speech," wrote Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain. "Someone has to do something with the symbol before it can be speech. ... Typically a person possessing a gun has no intent to convey a particular message, nor is any particular message likely to be understood by those who view it."

so, what are cali folks waiting for?

soap box
ballot box

CARTRIDGE BOX.

Do something with that symbol.

TXL

"We conclude that a gun itself is not speech," wrote Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain. "Someone has to do something with the symbol before it can be speech. ... Typically a person possessing a gun has no intent to convey a particular message, nor is any particular message likely to be understood by those who view it."

MOLON LABE



Is that understood?

All of us schmucks are just not smart enough to understand the Constitution, I guess.
Way past time to kick ass if you ask me.


Fuck 'em. We're the ones with the guns.  

It's getting harder and harder to excersize your 2nd Amend rights every day.

I'm SO glad I started building my own firearms.

Until I lost them in that terrible boating accident.

Quoted: It's getting harder and harder to excersize your 2nd Amend rights every day.

A perfect example of "use 'em or lose 'em".