Nordyke

Nordyke v. King

Good Law
118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 761·2002 Cal. LEXIS 2351·2002 Daily Journal DAR 4375·27 Cal. 4th 875·44 P.3d 133
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 22, 2002No. S091549California2,682 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Moreno, J.

We granted the request of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, for certification pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 29.5 to address the following question: Does state' law regulating the possession of firearms and gun shows preempt a municipal ordinance prohibiting gun possession on county property? We conclude that the municipal ordinance in question, insofar as it concerns gun shows, is not preempted. Other aspects of the ordinance may be partially preempted, but we need not address these aspects in this case.

I. Statement of Facts

The facts, as set forth by the Ninth Circuit and from our own review of the record, are as follows:

II. Discussion

General preemption principles are recapitulated in Great Western, a case addressing whether state law preempts an ordinance banning the sale of guns on county property. We conclude in Great Western that “[a] review of *882 the gun law preemption cases indicates that the Legislature has preempted discrete areas of gun regulation rather than the entire field of gun control.” (Great Western, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 861 .) We further conclude that an ordinance banning the sale of firearms and…

Dissenting Opinion

Brown, J.

Alameda County might be able to prohibit gun shows on county property, assuming the property is located within the geographic boundaries of the county and subject to the county’s regulatory jurisdiction. (Cf. Great Western Shows, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 853, 860-870 [ 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 746 , 44 P.3d 120 ].) But the county did not enact a prohibition against gun shows. Instead, the county prohibited, with limited exceptions, the possession of firearms on county property. (Alameda County Gen. Ord. Code, ch. 9.12, § 9.12.120; see maj. opn., ante, at pp. 880-881.) That prohibition conflicts with several state statutes that expressly authorize certain persons to carry firearms without restriction as to place. (See, e.g., Pen. Code, §§ 831.4, subd. (b), 830.9, 831.6, subd. (b), 12027, subd. (i) [provisions authorizing non-peace-officers to carry firearms in certain circumstances]; see also id., §§ 12031, 12050, 12051 [provisions authorizing licensed persons to possess loaded and/or concealable firearms].) Nothing in state law suggests that these authorizations to carry or possess firearms under certain circumstances are subject to local restrictions, and if they…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.