Here’s some more pics from the historic Nordyke v. King hearing, including another shot of the victory salute. The crowd on the steps is a good chunk of the Calgunners who were there. Click to embiggen!
Also, C-SPAN will be airing Nordyke at 4PM Pacific time on Saturday 1/24 on C-SPAN 1.
It’s very quick; our side speaks first for 19 minutes, then the poor lawyer for the other side gets 20 minutes (actually some folks chrony’d it and he got a few more than 20) and then we get a 1 minute rebuttal. All in all a very very good way for you to spend 40 minutes of your weekend.
Be sure to listen for the roar of laughter from the spectators when one of the judges makes a joking comment at the other side’s expense, characterizing his argument as allowing gun shows only if they don’t have guns.
I was very impressed with the whole thing, and it reminded me once again why I didn’t go into litigation or appellate work. I just don’t think that quickly on my feet.
A couple of points:
Our side (Calgunners and other gun-rights supporters) had more folks there than were spectators for the Napster hearing. We filled two courtrooms and a good chunk of the cafeteria! Very few anti-gunners attended.
Counsel for the other side blew it, despite prodding by the judges, by sticking to the position that the Heller ruling essentially means nothing outside of Washington, D.C.. The judges were looking for flexibility and a discussion from his side on how he would like them to rule if Heller did apply in California, and he didn’t deliver.
I was very glad that he didn’t appear to know much about gun sales generally. It’s specifically against the law (there’s a penal code section) in California to sell guns in the parking lot outside of gun shows, but he didn’t know that and took the position that if people wanted to sell guns at a gun show where guns were prohibited, they could just go out in the parking lot. In the end this will simply make him look foolish to the judges’ clerks.
At one point right about then I was on pins and needles when I realized he could make the devastating (I think) assertion that gun sales happen in California all the time without guns being present. I’m speaking, of course, of internet gun sales through Gunbroker, Gunsamerica, Collectors’ Firearms, etc.. The firearms can’t be transferred without going through a California brick-and-mortar dealer, of course, but people buy guns based on pictures quite often nowadays. Thankfully, he didn’t know that, and it’s not part of the record so far as I know.
He also at an earlier point asserted that Alameda County had always taken the position that gun shows were permissible on county grounds so long as the firearms were secured. Don Kilmer’s clerks were sitting right in front of me and began vigorously shaking their heads and whispering “he’s lying!” over and over. Not sure if that falsehood was intentional on county counsel’s part or if it was just one more thing about the case (which is a decade old now) of which he was blissfully ignorant.
Decision should come in 60-90 days. Pretty fast!
Inform me. Do the Justices verify the truth of the statements made by counsel from either side or do they simply accept as fact whatever is said?
Inquiring minds………..
Gerry N.
It’s an adversarial system, so the short answer is no. Lawyers are, however, honor-bound (snort) to make accurate representations to the court.
However, I’m pretty sure the fact that the only two places you may buy and sell firearms in California are 1) gun shows and 2) brick-and-mortar FFLs (i.e., no private-party paperless sales unless you fall under a specific exemption) is well-laid out in our side’s brief. The judges will see it when writing the opinion, or their clerks will, and that’s enough.
Pingback: Random Nuclear Strikes » RNS Quote of the Day: 03/06/09