Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 10/01/2005 3:20:10 PM PDT by freepatriot32
Gun enthusiasts were handed a legal victory this week when a federal judge ruled they can argue that their free-speech rights are violated by an Alameda County ordinance that bans guns on county property. In a ruling issued Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Martin J. Jenkins cleared the way for a new First Amendment challenge to the 1999 ordinance.
County attorneys had asked the judge to dismiss the challenge, arguing that the gun ban is a public safety issue rather than a constitutional one, but Jenkins said the plaintiffs had sufficient grounds to continue with their lawsuit.
"Plaintiffs have articulated a particularized political statement that they intend to convey through possessing guns at gun shows," Jenkins wrote in denying the county's request for dismissal. "Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that their conduct ... constitutes speech."
The legal challenge is the latest in long-standing attempts to overturn the county's ban.
The main plaintiffs in the case are gun show owners Russell and Sallie Nordyke of Willows, who promoted gun shows at the Alameda County Fairgrounds in Pleasanton from 1991 to 1999, when the county 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 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco had earlier sided with the county and rejected show promoters' arguments that their First and Second Amendment rights were violated, but the court said they could raise the challenge again once the law actually kept them from exercising what they believe are their rights.
The plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court,
which declined to take the case last October. The Nordykes' attorney, DonaldKilmer of San Jose, said they retooled their complaint. Specifically, Kilmer argued that possessing guns at gun shows expresses a "firmly held belief" in the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and conveys support for the National Rifle Association's interpretation of the Second Amendment.
In a statement, Kilmer said the judge agreed that having guns at gun shows can be constitutionally protected "expressive conduct" — a form of free speech.
"Gun shows are cultural events and are protected by the First Amendment and the California Constitution's Freedom of Expression clause," Kilmer said in the statement.
Kilmer also argued that possessing guns at gun shows conveyed solidarity with "gun culture" as well as patriotic and political messages, but the judge shot down those arguments, writing they are "inadequate to establish that gun possession amounts to speech."
County Counsel Richard Winnie did not return calls for comment Friday afternoon. In earlier interviews, he has said the ordinance does not infringe on First or Second Amendment rights.
"This is a simple case about the right of the public to protect public space," Winnie said in a 2004 interview.
Contact Michelle Maitre at mmaitre@angnewspapers.com
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
ping
I can't wait to see the 9th circus get this one, reading their decisions are always a hoot.
Never mind the first amendment what about the second amendment?
There's a safety waiver for Constitutionally recognized civil rights?? I wasn't aware of that.
I'm glad I moved...
They tried that last time and got nowhere with the united states siupreme joke so they are trying it this way now but im sure any day now the staunch defenders of the first amendment at the ACLU will take the case so as notto seem hypocritical /sarcasm
But I was talked into speaking at the Alemeda County Board of Supervisors meeting at which they passed this unConstitutional ordinance.
I made the point that the ordinance very clearly outlaws the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble for the purpose of legal commerce in firearms. The First Amendment does not suggest that only the well-regulated Militia may peaceably assemble nor does it suggest that government can prohibit some legal reasons for peaceable assembly.
I am baffled by the fact that this case seems to be based on the idea that assembling might only be protected if people are engaging in speech.
Don't they talk about guns at them shows?
Yep.
And about knives, swords, ammunition, tactical flashlights, gun safes, gun laws, the right to keep and bear arms, books, military clothing, Russian military gear, jack-booted-thugs, and beef jerky.
I do wish the SCOTUS would get on the ball with the 2nd Amendment.
The mushy, lack of clarity from the SCOTUS is not doing our a country a favor.
Come on COURT!
IS IT IS, OR IS IT AIN'T???
Depends on what the meaning of the word "is", um, is.
Neither its both :-)
It doesn't say, did this shooting happen at a gun show
or just a county function, fair etc.
does it matter???
There is so much wrong with that statement I don't even know where to start.......lick the hand of your master and pray he tosses you a bone.
"There's a safety waiver for Constitutionally recognized civil rights?? I wasn't aware of that."
You can't yell fire in a crowded theater or icite others to immediate criminal action. Safety and all, y'know. Been that way back since the 19-oughts, I think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.