Difference between revisions of "Nordyke v. King"
|(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)|
|Line 1:||Line 1:|
== Introduction ==
== Introduction ==
''Nordyke v. King''
''Nordyke v. King'' challenging an effective ban on gun shows on county property by the county of Alameda.
== Status ==
== Status ==
|Line 11:||Line 11:|
!colspan="1" bgcolor="#F2ECCE" |NORDYKE OPINION
!colspan="1" bgcolor="#F2ECCE" |NORDYKE OPINION
|bgcolor="yellow"|, : After 12 years of litigationNordyke is 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 , .
Latest revision as of 18:05, 8 January 2013
Nordyke v. King was challenging an effective ban on gun shows on county property by the county of Alameda.
|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.
- May 23, 2011 Request for rehearing and rehearing en banc
- 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 13, 2010 Don filed a copy 28j letter calling the courts attention to the Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach 1A case
- 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 - Multiple legal briefs filed in Nordyke v King
* 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.
- July 13, 2010 - Attorney Don Kilmer (representing Nordykes) filed a motion for supplemental briefing to the 3-judge panel.
Nordyke IV - VACATED -
- 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 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.
- June 6, 2009 - The Nordykes have filed their en banc brief and a 28(j) letter discussing the 7th Circuit's ruling in NRA & McDonald v. Chicago.
- 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 v. King update: 9th Circuit to Rehear En Banc (Order Nov 28 2011)
- Nordyke: Request for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc May, 2011
- NORDYKE OPINED MAY 2 May, 2011
- Nordyke III Audio is released: October, 2010
- NORDYKE III Orals. October, 2010
- Could Anderson v. Hermosa Beach (1A Tattoo shop victory) be relevant to Nordyke? September, 2010
- Oral arguments scheduled in Nordyke September, 2010
- MORE NORDYKE BRIEFS FILED August, 2010
- CGF Nordyke Amicus Brief - Ban limits supply - has no crime effect August, 2010
- Nordyke: En Banc Dismissed, Remanded to Panel July, 2010
- BREAKING Nordyke: Order entered September, 2009
- Nordyke: en banc Oral Arguments 9/24 10AM August, 2009
- Volokh: Nordyke goes en banc July, 2009
- Nordyke: 9th Request en banc Briefing May, 2009
- Nordyke is out! April, 2009
- Oral Arguments in landmark Nordyke v. King case - 100+ cal-gunners in attendance. January, 2009
- Nordyke: Reply and Amicus Briefs October, 2008
- Nordyke: 2A/14A Briefs are filed September, 2008
- Nordyke: Important breaking news - same panel remains July, 2008
Commentary and Analysis
- Nov 28, 2011 - 9th Circuit agrees to rehear long-running Alameda County gun rights case by Howard Mintz, MercuryNews.com
- May 3, 2011 - Alameda County gun show backers suffer setback by Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer, SFGate.com
- May 2, 2011 - The Legal Meaning of the Second Amendment Further Clarified in Nordyke v. King by Brian Doherty, Reason.com Online Blog
- May 2, 2011 - Circuit Won't Slam Door on Gun Ban Suit by Ginny LaRoe, The Recorder, Law.com
- September 22, 2010 - October 19th - Nordyke v King gun rights case to be heard. by Charles Nichols, LA History Examiner
- August 19, 2010 - SAF files amicus in Nordyke case; by Dave Workman, Seattle Gun Rights Examiner
- July 20, 2010 - The next gun rights battle is a turkey shoot by Charles Nichols, LA Anti-Establishment Examiner
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>