Nordyke

Nordyke v. King

Good Law
2003 Daily Journal DAR 1857·319 F.3d 1185·2003 WL 347009·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1430·2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 2911
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 18, 2003No. 99-17551California6,648 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Scannlain, J.

Opinion by Judge O’SCANNLAIN; Concurrence by Judge GOULD.

We must decide whether a local ordinance prohibiting the possession of firearms on county property infringes upon constitutional rights protected by the First and Second Amendments.

I

Russell Nordyke and Sallie Nordyke (dba TS Trade Shows) (“Nordyke”) have been promoting gun shows at the Alameda County Fairgrounds (“Fairgrounds”) since 1991. The Fairgrounds are located on un *1188 incorporated county land in the City of Pleasanton. The exhibitors at the show include sellers of antique (pre-1898) firearms, modern firearms, ammunition, Old West memorabilia, and outdoor clothing. In addition, the show hosts educational workshops, issue groups, and political organizations.

In August 1999, Alameda County (“County”) passed an ordinance making illegal the possession of firearms on County property (“Ordinance”). In pertinent part, the Ordinance reads: “Every person who brings onto or possesses on county property a firearm, loaded or unloaded, or ammunition for a firearm is guilty of a misdemeanor.” Alameda County, Cal., Ordinance § 9.12.120(b). The Ordinance would forbid the presence of firearms at gun shows, such as Nordyke’s,…

Concurring Opinion

Gould, J.

Specially Concurring:

I join the court’s opinion, and write to elaborate that Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir.1996), was wrongly decided, that the remarks in Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.2002), about the “collective rights” theory of the Second Amendment are not persuasive, and that we would be better advised to embrace an “individual rights” view of the Second Amendment, as was adopted by the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 260 (5th Cir.2001), consistent with United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 , 59 S.Ct. 816 , 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939). 1 We *1193 should recognize that individual citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable restriction by the government. 2 We should also revisit whether the requirements of the Second Amendment are incorporated into the Due Process Clause 3 of the Fourteenth Amend *1194 ment.

Our panel is bound by Hickman , and we cannot reach the merits of Nordyke’s challenge to Second Amendment. But the holding of Hickman can be discarded by our court en banc or can be rejected by the Supreme Court if it decides to visit the issue of what substantive rights are safeguarded by the Second…

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.