Judge upholds Alameda County ban on fairground guns

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 4/18/7 | Bob Egelko

[SmithL]

PLEASANTON -- A federal judge has upheld Alameda County's ban on possessing guns on county property, rejecting a free-speech claim by former promoters of gun shows at the fairgrounds in Pleasanton.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins of San Francisco was dated March 31 but was not received by lawyers until Tuesday, as the nationwide debate over gun control was being rekindled by Monday's slaughter of 32 people by a gunman at Virginia Tech University.

Donald Kilmer, lawyer for the gun show operators who challenged the ordinance when it was enacted in 1999, said they hadn't decided yet whether to appeal. If they do appeal, he said, they will include a claim that the Constitution protects an individual right to possess guns -- a claim that has been rejected by federal courts in California but was accepted by the appeals court that overturned a Washington, D.C., handgun ban last month.

Kilmer also said the Alameda County ordinance was "an attack on gun culture'' that violates the constitutional right of free speech. But Jenkins said the measure was based on legitimate safety concerns unrelated to speech.

"The county's interest is not in suppressing plaintiffs' messages about guns,'' but in "the prevention of violence and the preservation of safety on public property,'' the judge said. He said the ban has "a natural and probable effect of limiting the risk of overall shootings and gun violence on county property.''

County supervisors passed the ordinance in response to a Fourth of July shooting and melee on the fairgrounds in 1998 that injured 16 people. The measure did not prohibit gun shows, but its prohibition on firearms on county property prompted cancellations from promoters who had previously exhibited and sold guns at the county fair.

[SmithL]

Jenkins, Martin J.

Born 1953 in San Francisco, CA

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Northern District of California
Nominated by William J. Clinton on July 24, 1997, to a seat vacated by Eugene F. Lynch; Confirmed by the Senate on November 9, 1997, and received commission on November 12, 1997.

Education:
City College of San Francisco, A.A., 1973

Santa Clara University, B.A., 1976

University of San Francisco School of Law, J.D., 1980

Professional Career:
Law clerk, Alameda County District Attorney's Office, California, 1980-1981
Deputy district attorney, Alameda County District Attorney's Office, California, 1981-1983
Trial attorney, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1983-1985
Civil litigator, Pacific Bell Legal Department, 1985-1989
Judge, Oakland-Piedmont-Emeryville Municipal Court, California, 1989-1992
Judge, Alameda County Superior Court, California, 1992-1997

Race or Ethnicity: African American

Gender: Male

[BenLurkin]

The insanity continues.

[AZRepublican]

How does carrying a gun on a fairgrounds promote free speech for god sakes?

This is a very just ruling.

[P-40]

but in "the prevention of violence and the preservation of safety on public property,''

Guess they'll have to cancel the Hip Hop Festival then...

[USMCWife6869]

I joined the NRA about a month ago, at a gun show, on the county fairgrounds here in Yuma County. They have about 3 a year.

[Hatteras]

Not too sure of that connection but I don't think we are talking about walking into the State Fair with a gun. They are talking about "fairgrounds" as in what the facility is used for when the State Fair is not being held, which is about 49 to 50 weeks out of the year.

I believe they are talking about eliminating Gun Shows which are usually held at local state fairgrounds facilities.

[TheDon]

Mass murderers everywhere applaud the judge’s sensible ruling in favor of Alameda County!

[goldstategop]

Forget about an appeal to the Nine Circus. They're rabidly anti-gun up there.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[capt. norm]

How does carrying a gun on a fairgrounds promote free speech for god sakes?

If you carry a big enough gun, you can speak freely./sarc

[AZRepublican]

Oh! I completely overlooked the fact this wasn’t a fair but a gun show on fairgrounds. But still, I cannot find a free speech argument here.

[GoldCountryRedneck]

Yeah. I can see why. I mean we read about gun show shootings every day... (/SARC)

[Boston Blackie]

"The county's interest is not in suppressing plaintiffs' messages about guns,'' but in "the prevention of violence and the preservation of safety on public property,'' the judge said. He said the ban has "a natural and probable effect of limiting the risk of overall shootings and gun violence on county property.''

That sounds familar, oh yeah....

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker . "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

[an amused spectator]

He said the ban has "a natural and probable effect of limiting the risk of overall shootings and gun violence on county property."

I'm all confused about the risk thing. Does the black-robed buffoon mean the risk to potential disarmed victims, or the risk to potential illegally carrying shooters?

Maybe we should ask the "judge". :-)

[Madeleine Ward]

So funny. Too funny.

We have just seen at VTech that gun bans DO NOT STOP people from carrying guns in banned areas.

[beltfed308]

Try this.

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble

[AZRepublican]

>or the right of the people peaceably to assemble

I don’t think peaceably assembling shields anyone from the law.

[B4Ranch]

Go to the fairgrounds and become a volunteer victim.

[stevie_d_64]

So what you are stating is that the law attacks an inalienable right to assemble peacefully, speak, keep and bear arms???

And that without those inalienable rights, I assume it makes it easier to oppress those freedoms the Bill of Rights enumerate, and specify to citizens of this entire country???

And the mere location/residence of a citizen, and the laws of that state which attack, and oppress what another citizen in another location in this country may not have to worry about not being able to exercise those rights is acceptable to you???

Obviously, I know that things like this have gone on for years in certain places around this country...

Not to be antagonistic or disrespectful to you personally, but where’s your line in the sand, or does a line even exist??? What aggregious law or regulation/ordinance would it take to press the “AZRepublican’s” button at the very least to cause a bit of indignation at the thought of not being able to speak your opinion, assemble to speak to others, and personally protect that right to do so by bearing arms to say, keep someone enforcing a law, from stopping you from doing so???

I mean I must sound rambling, but I am intrigued by (correct me if I am wrong) your apparent acceptance of infringing and un-Constitutional barriers that would strip you and others of these inalienable rights???

Take your time...PM me, reply or ignore...That is a right we all have here...

Maybe I have you figured out incorrectly...I certainly would enjoy understanding your viewpoint better...