Skip to comments.SAF Files Amicus Brief in Nordyke Case, Argues for Strict Scrutiny(Second Amendment,CA)
Posted on 08/20/2010 5:07:13 AM PDT by marktwain
BELLEVUE, Wash., Aug. 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus curiae brief in the long-running Nordyke v. King case in California, arguing that Second Amendment issues must be decided on a "strict scrutiny" basis, and that an ordinance in Alameda County banning gun shows at the county fairgrounds is unconstitutional because it would not withstand that standard of review.
This case was a catalyst for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear SAF's case challenging the handgun ban in Chicago, because in an earlier Nordyke ruling subsequently set aside in favor of a full en banc hearing by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals created a conflict in the circuits over Second Amendment incorporation.
SAF's brief was written by attorney Alan Gura, who argued the landmark 2008 Heller case and represented SAF and its co-plaintiffs in the recent McDonald case, and is currently working with the foundation on other cases in Maryland, Illinois, New York and North Carolina.
Alameda County passed an ordinance more than ten years ago prohibiting the carrying of firearms on county property following a shooting at the county fair in 1998. Russell and Sallie Nordyke operated a gun show at the county fairgrounds. The shooting incident was not related to their gun show, but county officials used that as an excuse to adopt the prohibition.
"This is a very important case," said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, "because it could establish the highest standard of scrutiny to which gun laws around the country would be subjected. While gun prohibitionists were upset by the 2008 Heller ruling and demoralized by our victory this year in the McDonald case, they are terrified of a strict scrutiny standard that could be established by the Nordyke case."
The Nordyke case's importance, Gottlieb stated, "cannot be underestimated, or understated."
"Strict scrutiny is the standard of review to which all constitutionally-protected fundamental civil rights must be held," he observed. "This case has survived for more than a decade, a fact in itself that is remarkable. We believe, in the wake of Heller and McDonald, that the Ninth Circuit must act decisively to protect the Second Amendment from willy-nilly regulation by anti-gun public officials."
The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
It’s a sad state of affairs when we have to nickel and dime lawsuits to get the rights that SCOTUS already confirmed. Government officials that inhibit our rights should be held in contempt and jailed.
Such is the consequence of a court which insists on issuing narrow verdicts, and that facilitated by taking only narrow cases (Heller was limited to licensed handguns in the home), rendered in profuse verbiage.
Heller should have been, in entirety, “’Shall not be infringed’ means what it says. Reversed and remanded.”
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.