Court: Gun shows can be banned from public property

SAN FRANCISCO
April 20, 2009 12:49pm

Alameda County has the right to ban gun shows from county property without violating the U.S. Constitution, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says in a ruling that would apply to the court’s jurisdiction, which includes most of the West.

In a case that has been argued at various levels for the better part of a decade, the appeals court says “the county has offered a perfectly plausible purpose for the ordinance: the reduction of gun violence on county property.”

Alameda County was sued by Russell Nordyke and his wife Ann Nordyke, who operate TS Trade Shows, which operates gun shows. It had held them at the Alameda County Fairgrounds until the county passed an ordinance strictly regulating the physical control of weapons on county property.

“The county thought it dangerous for people to wander around its property armed. To ban or strictly to regulate gun possession on county land is the only straightforward response to such a danger,” the three-judge panel on the court of appeals says.

“We conclude that the ordinance is ‘unrelated to the suppression of free expression,’” the opinion says.

But the court, in a lengthy treatise on the history of the right to own guns in the United State, also notes that “that the right to keep and bear arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition…. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.”

The panel notes that “the ordinance before us … does not directly impede the efficacy of self-defense or limit self-defense in the home. Rather, it regulates gun possession in public places that are county property.”

The court says challenging the ordinance on Second Amendment grounds falls short because “the ordinance does not meaningfully impede the ability of individuals to defend themselves in their homes with usable firearms.… The ordinance falls on the lawful side of the division, familiar from other areas of substantive due process doctrine, between unconstitutional interference with individual rights and permissible government nonfacilitation of their exercise. Finally, prohibiting firearm possession on municipal property fits within the exception from the Second Amendment for “sensitive places.”

Comments on this story

Brandon Combs 4/20/09 1:16 PM
Why no mention of the little (huge) issue of incorporation of 2A in the Ninth Circuit? This landmark decision incorporates the second amendment (right to keep and bear) into California's constitution via the 14th's Due Process Clause. What an egregious oversight to miss something of this significance.

Hickmannomore 4/20/09 1:21 PM (winner@yahoo.com)
Really?!? That is all you are going to write on this? Sure, the decision affirms that Alameda County can ban firearms on their property. But you leave out the fact that their decision also affirms that the 2nd amendment is indeed an individual right and that it is applied to the state and local governments therefore incorporated via the due process clause of the 14th amendment? I understand that this is a "business" news outlet but that is some poor reporting.

Liberty Now 4/20/09 1:27 PM
CVBT, You can bury your head in the sand (over the US 2nd Amendment incorporation story), but you can't hide. See Calguns.net for the whole story.

David Parker 4/20/09 4:30 PM
The huge breaking story here is that for the first time in the history of our country, the second amendment has been incorporated to state and municipal governments. We in CA have never had second amendment protection until now. Amazing that your writer would completely miss the significance of this ruling, focusing instead on the relatively minor gun show issue. This ruling will eventually effect the CA discriminatory concealed weapon permit system, 'assault' weapon bans, magazine capacity restrictions, CA's 'safe' gun list and many other second amendment issues. It would be refreshing to read the sincere efforts of a reporter with at least a passing understanding of this significant decision.

Bruno 4/22/09 11:58 AM
It's incredible to me that this story missed the real headline here: In the first such ruling in the nation, a federal appeals court ruled Monday that private citizens can challenge state and local gun laws by invoking the constitutional right to bear arms. The 2nd amendment for the first time in history now applies to California! The San Francisco Chronicle didn't try to sugar coat this bitter pill for gun control supporters by overemphasizing the gun show ruling.