Incorporation Thread - Nordyke is out!!

[maestro pistolero]

Anyone share my concern?

Despite all the zeal of the day, does anyone share my concern about this ruling emboldening local government to undermine the newly won incorporation with flimsy claims that nearly any public area may considered a "sensitive place" in the context of the Heller decision?

I am not at all convinced that we should let this stand. I will be very interested to learn the strategy of the Nordykes going forward. Obviously, any approach going forward should not endanger the incorporation, which would be hard to imagine, given the courts' broad reasoning behind incorporation.

 

[grymster2007]

does anyone share my concern about this ruling emboldening local government to undermine the newly won incorporation with flimsy claims that nearly any public area may considered a "sensitive place" in the context of the Heller decision?

I do. That was my first thought on reading the ruling and in fact I posted on it. How long could the states play those shenanigans before some high court makes a determination on what constitutes "sensitive"? I image that could go on for some time, especially since defining sensitive isn't going to be easy.

 

[maestro pistolero]

Schools and government buildings were the terms Scalia used, if I recall. This court extended that to a county fairground (building, I assume) which although technically a government building, is almost certainly not the type of 'sensitive place' the USSC majority was referring to.

Public housing is also a government building, but also a domicile. If 2A applies anywhere, it clearly applies in the home, whether government owned or not.

Are we to believe that a county fairground building is a more 'sensitive place' than a government apartment building, sleeping babies and all? I'd like to see someone try to make that argument.

 

[carguychris]

Are we to believe that a county fairground building is a more 'sensitive place' than a government apartment building, sleeping babies and all? I'd like to see someone try to make that argument.

Therein lies the best argument for making an appeal to the SCOTUS and overturning this decision. However, as I pointed out earlier, the main problem is that this particular case isn't directly about self-defense; it's about holding a gun show.

OTOH it's only a matter of time before another case emerges that addresses this issue head-on.

 

[maestro pistolero]

it's only a matter of time before another case emerges that addresses this issue head-on.

Right. The challenge now seems a little narrow for the breadth of the ordinance. It's almost as if they were asking for an exception to the ordinance, instead of addressing the issue head on as you describe.

But when the case started out, there was no Heller decision, and, of course, no incorporation. Now there's both.

This case was about a gun show, but the ordinance challenged says no guns on any county property. That's a ban, in my opinion, because county property is everywhere.

What's next, no guns on city property? And by the way, no guns on federal land either!

The court seems to be contending that all county property is 'sensitive' in the sense that the Scalia meant it in Heller. It is overreaching, to say the least.

 

[cold dead hands]

I strongly oppose widespread restrictions on gun sales, but OTOH I don't see how the 2A could be interpreted to force the government to allow gun sales on government land.

There is no Government Land. It is "we, the people" land. We the people have a right to private commerce (that is open to the public...yes, the twain shall meet) wherever we choose to have it, provided it doesn't interfere with the standards of common civility...i.e. no having it on Main Street at rush hour . Not to mention that the ability to bear arms (and they cannot be bourne unless purchased, seeing as how the average citizen has no firearm manufacturing skills, for most regular type folks) has nothing to do with being forced into a storefront property.

If a large group of folks want to come together for a gun bazaar and a large(r) group want to attend the bazaar how is it that this is repugnant to the 2A. There will be lots of "bearing of arms". Last time I checked, this was perfectly legal.

If you really want to get down and dirty about it...FFL's smack in the face of the 2A.

A person spends private money on guns. He sells them for a profit. Where does the ATF fit in to this? Private property being transferred has no business in .fed hands.

Fine...he has to pay taxes on his profits. Explain how any of the gun trade is more than an IRS issue...assuming you believe that the IRS is a good thing...

 

[publius42]

The 9th circuit opinion did comment that it was "odd" to consider a parking lot a "sensitive place" as Scalia used the term.

The Nordykes argue that the Ordinance is overbroad
because it covers more than such sensitive places. They list
the areas covered: “open space venues, such as County-owned
parks, recreational areas, historic sites, parking lots of public
buildings . . . and the County fairgrounds.” The only one of
these that seems odd as a “sensitive place” is parking lots.

It's not the only one that seems odd to me, and given the history presented at the case, it seems that a sure way to prevent any future shootings at the fairgrounds would be to hold a gun show there that never closes.