Difference between revisions of "Nordyke v. King"

From Calguns Foundation Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Status)
(Introduction)
 
(30 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== Introduction ==
 
== Introduction ==
  
Nordyke v. King is a case challenging an effective ban on gun shows on county property by the county of Alameda. While the case was originally about gun shows on county property, it may now play a crucial role in defining the judicial standard of review for scrutinizing other laws facing second amendment challenges.
+
''Nordyke v. King'' was challenging an effective ban on gun shows on county property by the county of Alameda.
  
Alan M. Gottlieb, [http://www.saf.org/ Second Amendment Foundation] founder and Executive Vice President had this to say about the Nordyke case:
+
== Status ==
 +
PACER case number [https://ecf.ca9.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp&caseNum=07-15763&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y 07-15763] filed in [http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit] (San Francisco).
  
“This is a very important case, because it could establish the
+
===Nordyke VI===
highest standard of scrutiny to which gun laws around the country would
+
[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16141834160372842342 Nordyke v. King, 681 F. 3d 1041 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2012]
  be subjected. While gun prohibitionists were upset by the 2008 Heller
+
{| border="1"
ruling and demoralized by our victory this year in the McDonald case,
+
!colspan="1" bgcolor="#F2ECCE" |NORDYKE OPINION
they are terrified of a strict scrutiny standard that could be
+
|- align="center"
established by the Nordyke case.” <ref name="SAF News Release 8/19/2010">[http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=338 SAF FILES AMICUS BRIEF IN NORDYKE CASE, ARGUES FOR STRICT SCRUTINY]</ref>
+
|bgcolor="yellow"|January 8th, 2013: After 12 years of litigation, Nordyke v. King is finally over. The ruling did not impact the 2A right. Gun shows may be held on County property provided that the Nordykes' comply with the ordinance by tethering guns to tables like other merchandise at retail stores. The Nordykes' were not awarded prevailing party status by the court and despite petitioning the Supreme Court, fees and costs are not recoverable.
 +
|}
  
== Status ==
+
*November 28, 2011: Chief Judge KOZINSKI issues an [http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=124497&d=1322531368 order] to rehear the case en banc:
This case is case number 07-15763 filed in [http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit] (San Francisco).
+
''Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that
 +
this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel
 +
opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.
 +
Judge Rawlinson did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.
 +
''
 +
 
 +
* July 18, 2011, Appellants filed a Leave to file Reply Brief in Support of Rehearing for En Banc
 +
 
 +
* July 11, 2011, Appellees filed a response to Combo PFR Panel and En Banc rehearing.
 +
 
 +
* June 14, 2011 [http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=444689 9th Circuit Orders Alameda County to file Brief in ''Nordyke v. King'']
 
   
 
   
 +
* May 23, 2011 [http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Nordyke-v-King/179-1-Petition-for-En-Banc-Review.pdf Request for rehearing and rehearing en banc]
 +
 +
===Nordyke V===
 +
 +
* [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16860306062835348173 Nordyke v. King, 644 F. 3d 776 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2011]
 +
 +
* May 2, 2011 - Nordyke V Opinion is [http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/05/02/07-15763.pdf released].  Nordyke loses and is sent back to district court to argue the second amendment claim.  If no other action is taken, this will reset the timeline approximately another two years.
 +
 
* October 19, 2010 - Oral Arguments heard at 1:30 PM at the James M. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco. Recording of the arguments [http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000006368 here].
 
* October 19, 2010 - Oral Arguments heard at 1:30 PM at the James M. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco. Recording of the arguments [http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000006368 here].
  
Line 21: Line 41:
 
* September 9, 2010 Oral arguments scheduled for October 19, 2010 at 1:30 PM at the James M. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco.
 
* September 9, 2010 Oral arguments scheduled for October 19, 2010 at 1:30 PM at the James M. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco.
  
* August 18, 2010 - [http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/current-litigation/53-court-filings/907-multiple-legal-briefs-filed-in-nordyke-v-alameda-ninth-circuit-case-may-determine-the-standard-of-review-for-scrutinizing-laws-facing-second-amendment-challenges.html Multiple legal briefs filed in Nordyke v King ]
+
* August 18, 2010 - [http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/current-litigation/53-court-filings/907-multiple-legal-briefs-filed-in-nordyke-v-alameda-ninth-circuit-case-may-determine-the-standard-of-review-for-scrutinizing-laws-facing-second-amendment-challenges.html Multiple legal briefs filed in ''Nordyke v King'' ]
 
   
 
   
* Amicus Brief of the CRPA Foundation;
+
* Amicus Brief of the CRPA Foundation;
* Amicus Brief of the NRA;
+
* Amicus Brief of the NRA;
* Amicus Brief of the Calguns Foundation;
+
* Amicus Brief of the Calguns Foundation;
* Brief on behalf of the Nordykes;
+
* Brief on behalf of the Nordykes;
* Amicus Brief of LCAV;
+
* Amicus Brief of LCAV;
* Amicus Brief of SAF;
+
* Amicus Brief of SAF;
* Amicus Brief of Gun Owners of California, Inc.;
+
* Amicus Brief of Gun Owners of California, Inc.;
* Brief on behalf of the County of Alameda
+
* Brief on behalf of the County of Alameda
* Amicus Brief of Brady Center
+
* Amicus Brief of Brady Center
  
 
* August 17, 2010 - CRPAF files [http://www.calgunlaws.com/images/stories/Docs/Nordyke/1crpa.pdf a brief]. Calgunlaws.com (C.D. Michel) would appreciate it if you would [http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/register.html register] there so you may receive updates in the future.
 
* August 17, 2010 - CRPAF files [http://www.calgunlaws.com/images/stories/Docs/Nordyke/1crpa.pdf a brief]. Calgunlaws.com (C.D. Michel) would appreciate it if you would [http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/register.html register] there so you may receive updates in the future.
  
 
* July 13, 2010 - Attorney Don Kilmer (representing Nordykes) filed a [http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Nordyke-v-King/Motion-for-Supp-Brief-Filed-2010-07-13.pdf motion for supplemental briefing] to the 3-judge panel.
 
* July 13, 2010 - Attorney Don Kilmer (representing Nordykes) filed a [http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Nordyke-v-King/Motion-for-Supp-Brief-Filed-2010-07-13.pdf motion for supplemental briefing] to the 3-judge panel.
   
+
 
 +
===Nordyke IV - VACATED - ===
 +
 
 +
* [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4652598510156282452 Nordyke v. King, 611 F. 3d 1015 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2010 ] Nordyke IV - VACATED
 +
 
 
* July 12, 2010 - 9th Circuit en banc panel files [http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/12/07-15763.pdf an order] stating
 
* July 12, 2010 - 9th Circuit en banc panel files [http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/12/07-15763.pdf an order] stating
 
  The panel opinion in Nordyke v. King, 563 F.3d 439 (9th Cir. 2009), is  
 
  The panel opinion in Nordyke v. King, 563 F.3d 439 (9th Cir. 2009), is  
Line 59: Line 83:
 
*May 18, 2009 - Late the afternoon of Monday May 18th, the 9th Circuit informed  all parties in Nordyke that a judge of the 9th Circuit has has  called for a vote to determine whether the case will be reheard  en banc.  
 
*May 18, 2009 - Late the afternoon of Monday May 18th, the 9th Circuit informed  all parties in Nordyke that a judge of the 9th Circuit has has  called for a vote to determine whether the case will be reheard  en banc.  
  
*April 20, 2009 - [http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Nordyke_v._King#April_20.2C_2009_Opinion Opinion of the court]
+
===Nordyke IV===
  
== Calguns discussions ==
+
*[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5678782307901693880 Nordyke v. King, 563 F. 3d 439 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Nordyke IV”)]
  
 +
===Nordyke III===
 +
 +
*[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15142229077642329656& Nordyke v. King, 319 F.3d 1185, 1190 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Nordyke III”)]
 +
 +
===Nordyke II===
 +
 +
* [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15739810071406599158 Nordyke v.King, 44 P.3d 133, 138 (Cal. 2002) (“Nordyke II”)]
 +
 +
===Nordyke I===
 +
 +
* [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3438675193782582092 Nordyke v. King, 229 F. 3d 1266  (9th Cir. 2000 (“Nordyke I”)]
 +
 +
== Calguns discussions ==
 +
* [http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=7577326&posted=1#post7577326 Nordyke v. King update: 9th Circuit to Rehear En Banc (Order Nov 28 2011)]
 +
* [http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=7104928 Nordyke: Request for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc] May, 2011
 +
* [http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=427991 NORDYKE OPINED MAY 2] May, 2011
 +
* [http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=354321 Nordyke III Audio is released:] October, 2010
 +
* [http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=354241 NORDYKE III Orals.] October, 2010
 
* [http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=340719 Could Anderson v. Hermosa Beach (1A Tattoo shop victory) be relevant to Nordyke?] September, 2010  
 
* [http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=340719 Could Anderson v. Hermosa Beach (1A Tattoo shop victory) be relevant to Nordyke?] September, 2010  
 
* [http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=340816 Oral arguments scheduled in Nordyke] September, 2010
 
* [http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=340816 Oral arguments scheduled in Nordyke] September, 2010
Line 79: Line 121:
  
 
== Commentary and Analysis ==
 
== Commentary and Analysis ==
 +
 +
*Nov 28, 2011 - [http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_19427867? 9th Circuit agrees to rehear long-running Alameda County gun rights case] by Howard Mintz, MercuryNews.com
 +
 +
*May 3, 2011 - [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/05/02/BASI1JAQ2A.DTL&tsp=1 Alameda County gun show backers suffer setback] by Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer, SFGate.com
 +
 +
*May 2, 2011 - [http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/02/the-legal-meaning-of-the-secon The Legal Meaning of the Second Amendment Further Clarified in Nordyke v. King] by Brian Doherty, ''Reason.com Online Blog''
 +
 +
*May 2, 2011 - [http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202492744491 Circuit Won't Slam Door on Gun Ban Suit] by Ginny LaRoe, ''The Recorder, Law.com''
  
 
*September 22, 2010 - [http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-angeles/october-19th-nordyke-v-king-gun-rights-case-to-be-heard October 19th - Nordyke v King gun rights case to be heard.] by Charles Nichols, ''LA History Examiner''
 
*September 22, 2010 - [http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-angeles/october-19th-nordyke-v-king-gun-rights-case-to-be-heard October 19th - Nordyke v King gun rights case to be heard.] by Charles Nichols, ''LA History Examiner''
Line 95: Line 145:
 
This case has a <u>long</u> and convoluted history.
 
This case has a <u>long</u> and convoluted history.
  
  ''The case was filed in 1999. It has been heard by the Ninth Circuit three times,
+
  ''The case was filed in 1999. It has been heard by the Ninth Circuit''
  ''including en banc after a sua sponte call for a vote, and had even passed through  
+
  ''[four] times, including en banc after a sua sponte call for a vote,''
''the California Supreme Court on a certified question. Following the panel’s next  
+
''and had even passed through the California Supreme Court on a''
''decision, it could well return before the en banc court, and perhaps reach the Supreme Court.<ref name="Pena v. Cid Doc 27">Joint Status Report, [http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.191444/gov.uscourts.caed.191444.27.0.pdf Document 27] filed in ''Pena v. Cid''</ref>
+
''certified question. Following the panel’s next decision, it could''
 +
''well return before the en banc court, and perhaps reach the Supreme''
 +
''Court.''<ref name="Pena v. Cid Doc 27">Joint Status Report, [http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.191444/gov.uscourts.caed.191444.27.0.pdf Document 27] filed in ''Pena v. Cid''</ref>
  
 
''
 
''

Latest revision as of 18:05, 8 January 2013

Introduction

Nordyke v. King was challenging an effective ban on gun shows on county property by the county of Alameda.

Status

PACER case number 07-15763 filed in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (San Francisco).

Nordyke VI

Nordyke v. King, 681 F. 3d 1041 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2012

NORDYKE OPINION
January 8th, 2013: After 12 years of litigation, Nordyke v. King is finally over. The ruling did not impact the 2A right. Gun shows may be held on County property provided that the Nordykes' comply with the ordinance by tethering guns to tables like other merchandise at retail stores. The Nordykes' were not awarded prevailing party status by the court and despite petitioning the Supreme Court, fees and costs are not recoverable.
  • November 28, 2011: Chief Judge KOZINSKI issues an order to rehear the case en banc:
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that
this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel
opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.
Judge Rawlinson did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.

  • July 18, 2011, Appellants filed a Leave to file Reply Brief in Support of Rehearing for En Banc
  • July 11, 2011, Appellees filed a response to Combo PFR Panel and En Banc rehearing.

Nordyke V

  • May 2, 2011 - Nordyke V Opinion is released. Nordyke loses and is sent back to district court to argue the second amendment claim. If no other action is taken, this will reset the timeline approximately another two years.
  • October 19, 2010 - Oral Arguments heard at 1:30 PM at the James M. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco. Recording of the arguments here.
  • September 9, 2010 Oral arguments scheduled for October 19, 2010 at 1:30 PM at the James M. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco.
* Amicus Brief of the CRPA Foundation;
* Amicus Brief of the NRA;
* Amicus Brief of the Calguns Foundation;
* Brief on behalf of the Nordykes;
* Amicus Brief of LCAV;
* Amicus Brief of SAF;
* Amicus Brief of Gun Owners of California, Inc.;
* Brief on behalf of the County of Alameda
* Amicus Brief of Brady Center
  • August 17, 2010 - CRPAF files a brief. Calgunlaws.com (C.D. Michel) would appreciate it if you would register there so you may receive updates in the future.

Nordyke IV - VACATED -

  • July 12, 2010 - 9th Circuit en banc panel files an order stating
The panel opinion in Nordyke v. King, 563 F.3d 439 (9th Cir. 2009), is 
vacated and the case is remanded to that panel for further consideration
in light of McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521, slip op. (U.S.
June 28, 2010).
  • July 9, 2010 - Don Kilmer files a "28J" letter with 9th Circuit asking that the McDonald decision be considered in the en banc proceeding.
  • September 24, 2009 - The en banc panel heard oral arguments in the morning. Later in the afternoon, the panel vacated the submission, effectively deferring to SCOTUS for a resolution of McDonald v. City of Chicago.
  • September 14,2009 - The en banc panel has been set: Chief Judge Kozinski, Pregerson, Reinhardt, O'Scannlain, Rymer, Hawkins, Graber, Gould, Tallman, M. Smith, Ikuta.
  • August 21, 2009 - Oral argument set for 10:00 am Thursday, September 24, in Courtroom One at the James R. Browning Courthouse, located at 95 Seventh Street in San Francisco, California.
  • July 29, 2009 - Judge Kozinski filed an order that the case will be heard en banc. Oral argument to be the week of September 21, 2009. Further status from the 9th Circuit at this link.
  • June 8, 2009 - Alameda files its en banc brief.
  • May 18, 2009 - Late the afternoon of Monday May 18th, the 9th Circuit informed all parties in Nordyke that a judge of the 9th Circuit has has called for a vote to determine whether the case will be reheard en banc.

Nordyke IV

Nordyke III

Nordyke II

Nordyke I

Calguns discussions

Commentary and Analysis

Background

In August 1999, Alameda County passed an ordinance making illegal the possession of firearms on County property. In pertinent part, the Ordinance reads: “Every person who brings onto or possesses on county property a firearm, loaded or unloaded, or ammunition for a firearm is guilty of a misdemeanor.” Alameda County, Cal., Ordinance § 9.12.120(b). The Ordinance would forbid the presence of firearms at gun shows held at the Fairgrounds. As a practical matter, the Ordinance makes it unlikely that a gun show could profitably be held there.

Russ and Sallie Nordyke who own the TS Trade Show and various gun rights supporters represented by Don Kilmer filed suit against the County of Alameda alleging that Alameda's Ordinance was preempted by state law and violated various of their First Amendment rights.

Nordyke v. King Historical Notes

This case has a long and convoluted history.

The case was filed in 1999. It has been heard by the Ninth Circuit
[four] times, including en banc after a sua sponte call for a vote,
and had even passed through the California Supreme Court on a
certified question. Following the panel’s next decision, it could
well return before the en banc court, and perhaps reach the Supreme
Court.<ref name="Pena v. Cid Doc 27">Joint Status Report, Document 27 filed in Pena v. Cid</ref>

For a concise history lesson on this case, please read here or here

Old Nordyke v. King Wiki Historical Notes

Notes

<references/>

External links