CA Supreme Court: Gun Shows Can Be Banned

[Jeff Thomas]

http://www.thesandiegochannel.com/sh/news/california/stories/news-california-141155520020422-140431.html

Court: Gun Shows Can Be Banned
Decision Expected To Set Off Avalanche Of Ordinances
Posted: 3:01 p.m. EDT April 22, 2002
Updated: 7:35 p.m. EDT April 22, 2002

SAN FRANCISCO -- Counties and cities in California may ban gun shows on their fairgrounds and other government properties, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The 6-1 decision upholds the hotly contested banning of weapons at flea markets in Los Angeles and Alameda counties. The ordinances were passed there in 1999 among concerns that gun shows tarred the image of the counties and promoted violence.

The decision is expected to set off an avalanche of similar ordinances across the state. In briefs filed to the court, representatives from at least 20 cities and counties urged the justices to grant them such powers.

California's justices have never ruled on whether statewide regulation of gun sales leaves room for stronger local regulations. Until Monday, the high court has left those decisions for the lower courts to decide.

A state appeals court overturned San Francisco's 1982 ban on handgun possession, saying that cities and counties cannot write such laws. But in 1998, another appeals court upheld West Hollywood's ban on cheap handguns known as Saturday Night Specials, saying that a city could outlaw a gun that was legal in other parts of the state.

But on Monday, the justices entered the politically charged debate, ruling in two cases that local governments are free to outlaw gun shows that commonly occur on county fairgrounds.

"Alameda County has the authority to prohibit the operation of gun shows held on its property," Justice Carlos R. Moreno wrote in his first majority opinion since taking office in October.

In sharp dissent, Justice Janice Rogers Brown said that such an initiative by a local government "exceeds its regulatory authority."

The gun industry argued to the seven justices that local governments are powerless to regulate the industry because the Legislature has authorized gun shows on public property. The industry said the local laws were pre-empted by state rules.

The cases reached the high court after a federal appeals court, unsure of how to interpret California law, asked California's justices to intervene.

The decisions do not reach into whether local governments can ban gun sales on private property. The cases only involve whether the bans can occur on public government-owned property.

The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by Great Western Shows Inc. after county supervisors approved the ordinance on a 3-2 vote in September 1999.

The measure prevents Great Western from using the county-owned Fairplex in Pomona, a venue the organization had rented four times a year for 22 years.

The county fair reportedly made about a $600,000 a year from the show, which was moved to Las Vegas in 2000. About 40,000 people attended the company's last show at the fairgrounds in 1999.

The ruling does not end the county's legal dispute with Great Western Shows, because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals referred the case back to the district court to decide on free speech and equal protection issues.

Jeff Schenkel, of Great Western Shows, predicted the company would win at the federal court level and still has plans to bring the show back to the Fairplex.

"The customers want it, the 2,000 vendors who participate in the show each year want it," he said, adding that the company held shows in Pomona for years "without a serious incident on the fairgrounds or related to the show."

There are 2,500 licensed firearms dealers in California. The same 10-day waiting period for persons to purchase weapons at a gun store applies to weapons purchased at California's gun shows. Only licensed firearm dealers can sell weapons in the state and convicted felons are banned from buying them.

 

[OF]

Get 'yer Constitution Toilet Paper Rolls here! Step right up and bend over for a free trial!

6 to 1. Ooof.

- Gabe

 

[Jim March]

Well, the situation isn't totally bleak, and is by no means over.

This is actually a Federal case. The Feds sent one particular question about state law over to the Calif Supremes for a decision: "does state firearms law preemption mean these gun show bans are illegal under state law?".

OK, we don't like the answer to that one bit.

But it ain't over, because that wasn't the only basis on which the NRA's California attorneys led by Chuck Michel challenged this stuff.

There are also multiple 1st Amendment issues under the Fed constitution, including a freedom to do commercial speech, freedom to do the sort of POLITICAL speech common at gun shows, etc.

These are potent arguments, similar to what attorney Don Kilmer used to beat the Santa Clara gun show ban some years back. Kilmer has been consulting on this case.

There are also equal protection issues at play, if our type of business is screwed over differently from other business types.

So, we ain't dead yet.

Besides, there's always our constitutional right to home-made BEEF JERKY!

 

[dZ]

Ban Computer Shows

They are havens for hackers, stolen goods and pornographers

do it for the children

 

[Gary H]

From ggnra.org

Received this in an Email:

"
>> CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT: Gun Shows Can Be Banned

http://www.thesandiegochannel.com/s...s/news-california-141155520020422-140431.html

SAN FRANCISCO -- Counties and cities in California may ban gun shows on their fairgrounds and other government properties, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The 6-1 decision upholds the hotly contested banning of weapons at flea markets in Los Angeles and Alameda counties. The ordinances were passed there in 1999 among concerns that gun shows tarred the image of the counties and promoted violence.

----------- message below from gun rights lawyer Chuck Michel ------------- >>

Dear Self Defense Civil Rights Advocates:

Today's decisions in the Great Western and Alameda gun show cases are disheartening. Coming on the heels of the Kasler decision, I believe they underscore the degree of hostility toward self defense civil rights that runs throughout the state courts, and to a slightly lesser extent the federal courts, in California. But especially the Cal Supreme Court.

Anxious to share the credit if we prevailed, Don Kilmer and I made certain that there were lots of lawyers reviewing and writing the briefs filed in these cases. One consolation for me today is that those involved finally appreciate what we are up against, and are disillusioned to see the lengths to which courts will manipulate the facts and the law to suit their political inclinations. Seeking to comfort me, my associates tell me that every day half the lawyers leaving court are losers. That does not help.

What does help is that, despite the impression given by some media reports, the cases are not over. They now go back to the federal court where the First Amendment and the Equal Protection issues will be argued. The federal trial court judge in GWS, at least one 9th Circuit judge at oral argument, and Justice Brown in her dissent in the Nordyke decision today have all signaled that they understand the First Amendment argument is valid. We shall see.

From a practical precedent perspective, I'm not sure what, if anything today's preemption decisions give local governments that they pretty much didn't already have after CRPA v. West Hollywood -- except the ability to ban guns on property owned by the county/city itself (unless the Ninth Circuit adopts our First Amendment argument). Since they addressed only state laws, legally they have no national significance. No doubt the other side will try to use it to justify some new incremental infringement, but I'm not sure what yet.

In the meantime, this firm will continue to fight where ever we can -- in the state house, in city council chambers, in the press (where our coverage has tripled in recent years), at rubber chicken lunches, and in the courts. And we will be strategically selective (as we have been since the West Hollywood decision) in requesting that precious member money be spent on lawsuits.

C. D. Michel
TRUTANICH - MICHEL, LLP
Attorneys At Law"

 

[paratrooper]

I wonder if this also bans the gun shows that take place in automobile trunks in the ghetto .

 

[WyldOne]

hmmm. What part of "the right of the people to peacably assemble" is confusing?



Jim,

"does state firearms law preemption mean these gun show bans are illegal under state law?".

OK, we don't like the answer to that one bit.

Why don't we like the answer to that? State laws cannot trump the Constitution, so the answer would be a resounding HECK NO!.

(And is this a federal issue or a state issue? That's confusing for me)

 

[glock glockler]

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?waisdocid=57335829747+0+0+0&waisaction=retrieve

The right to assemble is in the California Constitution but they'd probably use the "public good" clause to deny gun shows that right.

Even still, it would be a federal issue due to the 14th Amendment, which reads as follows:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This basically means that it would be in conflict with the US constitution for California to make any law that would be illegal for the Federal government to make that would conflict with the US Bill of Rights. Does that make sense? In other words, the US Bill of Rights is then binding on the States.

 

[WyldOne]

Once we start limiting which groups shall be allowed to congregate, we are sliding down one of the most slippery slopes ever.

One of the most importatnt first amendment cases is Collin v. Smith, when Nazis wanted to march in predominantly Jewish Skokie, Illinois.

 

[dischord]

WyldOne:

As to whether state or federal court, it seems as though the 9th Circuit (federal) and Calif. Supreme Court are at odds on this, which makes this a case for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Glock's correct: this is textbook 14th Amendment.

http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/first/0422-155.html

CCRKBA Says Calif. Court Ruling Defies Precedents
U.S. Newswire
22 Apr 19:08
CCRKBA Says California Supreme Court Ruling Defies Legal
Precedents
To: National and State Desks
Contact: Joe Waldron of the Citizens Committee for the Right to
Keep and Bear Arms, 425-454-4911

BELLEVUE, Wash., April 22 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A California State
Supreme Court ruling today that allows banning of gun shows on
county fairgrounds and other government property defies federal
court precedent and violates the First Amendment, said Joe Waldron,
executive director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep
and Bear Arms (CCRKBA).

"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."

Waldron pointed specifically to the 9th Circuit Court decision
in Nordyke v. Santa Clara County (1997) and Silverado Promotions v.
Montgomery County, in which federal district courts ruled in favor
of gun shows.

The California case stems from a request by a federal appeals
court to the California Supreme Court, asking state justices to
intervene when federal judges could not be certain how to interpret
California law. The state High Court's 6-1 decision upheld a lower
court ruling that allows bans on guns at flea markets in Alameda
and Los Angeles counties.

"Specifically in the Nordyke case against Santa Clara County,
the 9th District Court ruled that gun shows are constitutionally
protected commercial free speech," Waldron stressed. "This case has
everything to do with the First Amendment, and protecting the right
of gun owners to freely associate with one another."

He said the ruling sets a dangerous precedent for the rights of
any organization to hold gatherings on public property, especially
when the gathering involves something as politically incorrect as
a gun show.

"Public property is there for everyone's use," he stated, "not
just individuals and organizations that are involved in activities
that are politically correct. The boundary of political correctness
is subject to change with public whim, but Constitutional rights
must be protected to a higher standard. Sadly, California's High
Court thinks otherwise."

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of
the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit
organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving
firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and
facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in
local communities throughout the United States.

http://www.usnewswire.com
-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
04/22 19:08

Copyright 2002, U.S. Newswire