Nordyke v. King | |
---|---|
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
Full case name | Russell Allen Nordyke, et al v. Mary V. King, et al |
Argued | January 15, 2009 |
Reargued | October 19, 2010 |
Decided | May 2, 2011 |
Citation(s) | 563 F.3d 439 (9th Cir. 2009) Rehearing, 644 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2011) En banc, 681 F. 3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2012) |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Arthur Alarcón, Diarmuid O'Scannlain, Ronald M. Gould |
Case opinions | |
Majority | O'Scannlain, joined by Alarcón |
Concurrence | Gould |
Laws applied | |
Second Amendment |
Nordyke v. King was a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in which a ban of firearms on all public property and whether the Second Amendment should be applied to the state and local governments is to be decided. After several hearings at different levels of the federal court system, Alameda County, California promised that gun shows could be held on county property, essentially repudiating its ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors of Alameda County, California had passed Ordinance No. 0-2000-22, codified at General Ordinance Code section 9.12.120, making it a misdemeanor to bring onto or to possess a firearm or ammunition on all County property. [1] Gun show promoters challenged the ordinance. [2]
On April 20, 2009, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court ruling which upheld the Alameda County ordinance. The court accepted Nordyke's argument that the Second Amendment was incorporated through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and so that it applied to the states and local governments. [3] In coming to that conclusion, the court found the right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition", a key factor under Duncan v. Louisiana for incorporation. [4] However, the court ruled that the ordinance was constitutional, finding the ban of guns on county property to fall under Heller's doctrine allowing governments to restrict possession in "sensitive" places.
On May 18, 2009, an anonymous judge of the Ninth Circuit called for briefing from both sides on whether the case should be reheard en banc . [5] On July 29, 2009, the Ninth Circuit decided to rehear this case en banc, thereby vacating both parts of the April 20 ruling. [6] [7] [8] After rehearing the case on September 24, 2009, the Ninth Circuit decided to delay ruling on the case until the Supreme Court decided McDonald v. Chicago . [9]
On July 12, 2010, the case was remanded by the en banc panel to the three judge panel for rehearing following McDonald v. Chicago, and oral arguments were heard by a panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court on October 19, 2010. [10] On May 2, 2011, the court released its decision. [11] Nordyke loses and is sent back to district court to argue the second amendment claim.
Subsequently, the court entertained a request from the plaintiffs for a rehearing en banc, and in June 2011 ordered the defendants to file a response. On November 28, 2011, the full Ninth Circuit Court agreed to hear the case. [12]
The case was reheard on March 19, 2012. During oral arguments the county stated that gun shows were not banned, and could be held with unloaded firearms if they were secured with cables. On April 4, 2012, the court ordered the parties to mediation. [13] On June 1, 2012, the full appeals court ruled that the county law was constitutional, since it allowed gun shows to take place on the fairgrounds, with tight restrictions. [14] [15]
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, along with nine other articles of the Bill of Rights. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home, while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) the Supreme Court ruled that state and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing upon this right. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) assured the right to carry weapons in public spaces with reasonable exceptions.
In law, an en banc session is a session in which a case is heard before all the judges of a court rather than by one judge or a smaller panel of judges.
Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution did not guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 (AWCA), California legislation that banned the manufacture, sale, transportation, or importation of specified semi-automatic firearms. The plaintiffs alleged that various provisions of the AWCA infringed upon their individual constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.
Gun laws in the United States regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition. State laws vary considerably, and are independent of existing federal firearms laws, although they are sometimes broader or more limited in scope than the federal laws.
Forsyth County, Georgia v. The Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court limited the ability of local governments to charge fees for the use of public places for private activities. By a 5–4 vote, the court ruled that an ordinance allowing the local government to set varying fees for different events violated the First Amendment due to the lack of "narrowly drawn, reasonable, and definite standards" governing the amount of the fee.
Marsha Lee Berzon is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
William Alan Fletcher is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Appointed by President Bill Clinton, Fletcher was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 1998. Fletcher taught at the UC Berkeley School of Law from 1977 to 1998.
Diarmuid Fionntain O'Scannlain is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. His chambers are located in Portland, Oregon.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that certain restrictions on guns and gun ownership were permissible. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or whether the right was only intended for state militias.
Gun laws in California regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of California in the United States.
Roger Thomas Benitez is a senior United States district judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. He is known for his opinions striking down several California gun control laws.
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms", as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
Bryan v. McPherson, 630 F.3d 805, was heard by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in October 2009. Plaintiff-appellee Carl Bryan was tasered by defendant-appellant Officer Brian MacPherson after being pulled over to the side of the road for failure to wear a seat belt. The case considered whether MacPherson's use of a taser during a routine traffic stop violated Bryan's Fourth Amendment rights. The majority opinion, written by Kim McLane Wardlaw, declared that the use of the taser in this situation could be considered excessive force. Richard Tallman and Consuelo María Callahan wrote the dissent. This case affirmed that this use of a taser could indeed be considered excessive force.
Gun laws in Hawaii regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of Hawaii, United States. Hawaii's gun laws are among the most restrictive in the country.
Moore v. Madigan is the common name for a pair of cases decided in 2013 by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, regarding the constitutionality of the State of Illinois' no-issue legislation and policy regarding the carry of concealed weapons. The plaintiffs, Michael Moore, Mary Shepard and the Second Amendment Foundation, sought an injunction against Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan, Illinois Governor Patrick Quinn, and other named defendants, barring them from enforcing two key provisions of the Illinois Statutes prohibiting public possession of a firearm or other weapon.
People v. Aguilar, 2 N.E.3d 321, was an Illinois Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (AUUF) statute violated the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Court stated that this was because the statute amounted to a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a personal right that was specifically named in and guaranteed by the United States Constitution, as construed by the United States Supreme Court. A conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm (UPF) was proper because the possession of handguns by minors was conduct that fell outside the scope of the Second Amendment's protection.
Peruta v. San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pertaining to the legality of San Diego County's restrictive policy regarding requiring documentation of "good cause" that "distinguish[es] the applicant from the mainstream and places the applicant in harm's way" before issuing a concealed carry permit.
Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Los Angeles law, Municipal Code § 41.49, requiring hotel operators to retain records about guests for a ninety-day period is facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it does not allow for pre-compliance review.
The 2016 Proposition 63, titled Firearms and Ammunition Sales, is a California ballot proposition that passed on the November 8, 2016 ballot. It requires a background check and California Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition, prohibits possession of high-capacity ammunition magazines over ten rounds, levies fines for failing to report when guns are stolen or lost, establishes procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by specified persons, and requires California Department of Justice's participation in the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
Miller v. Bonta is a pending court case before Judge Roger Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California concerning California's assault weapon ban, the Roberti–Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 (AWCA). Judge Roger Benitez struck down the ban in a ruling on June 5, 2021. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued a stay of the ruling on June 21, 2021, which left the ban in place as appeals were litigated. The panel then vacated Judge Benitez’s ruling and remanded it back down after NYSRPA v. Bruen was decided. The case was known as Miller v. Becerra before Rob Bonta succeeded Xavier Becerra as Attorney General of California in April 2021.