New look at gun shows on public land

November 29, 2011

A long-running battle over gun rights in California will be revisited by the entire 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals following a decision Monday.

At issue is a 1999 law banning gun shows, guns, and ammunition on public property. The 9th Circuit has interpreted the law on several different occasions in the past, generally upholding its prohibitions. Most recently a three-member panel of the appellate court ruled that “public safety” was adequate reason to restrict gun show-type activities on public grounds.

But more recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have strengthened protections of gun rights and applied the brakes to gun control laws in other states.

So the whole 11-member appeals court now will weigh in on what has become a monumental 12-year-old gun rights showdown over an Alameda County ordinance banning guns and ammunition on public property. The decision stems from a case involving gun show promoters Russ and Sallie Nordyke.

While the issue simmers on various court calendars,  the annual “Grizzly Gun Show” event is scheduled for Dec. 10-11 at the Paso Robles Event Center, a state-owned facility.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


Oh boy, more case law! You’re gonna’ make me do my homework, aren’t you? Well, better late than never….Thank-you for the cite!

The Paso Robles gun show is NOT the “Annual Grizzly” event nor is it associated with “Grizzly” in any way.

Seems like if a public building can be rented for a speech, political rally, church service, printing & publishing a newspaper, showing a movie, or any other exercise of a civil right; then Russ and Sallie Nordyke should be able to rent a public building for the purpose of exercising 2A civil rights. Something about that pesky 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Under The Law.


It sure seems that way doesn’t it?!

I know what “The right to keep arms” mean!

Does anyone know what “The RIGHT to bear arms” mean?


Not being able to purchase godly weapons upon public land is preposterous, therefore inhibiting many principles set forth by our Christian God and Jesus! When is the 9th district Court going to finally read the bible that they have us swear upon in court?!

“If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.” (Exodus 22:2-3)

The conclusion which can be drawn from this godly passage above is that a threat to one’s life is to be met with lethal force, like using a 357magum with “Mag-Safe” loads! After the sun has risen refers to a different judgment than the one permitted at night. Obviously at night it is more difficult to discern whether the intruder is a thief or a murderer. Nonetheless, I would error on the side of caution and empty all chambers or the entire clip if using an auto.

Jesus wants us to protect ourselves, as described herewith; “…But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a sack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one” (Luke 22:36). Jesus wants us to have a weapon, and keep in mind that the sword was the finest offensive weapon available to an individual in the biblical era. This today is the equivalent to an AR-15 with 30 round clips, praise!

So, my fellow Christians, don’t be a roody-poo, candy-ass milque toast, get a gun or rifle with some respectable hot loads for your self-defense, whether on public or private land, or out of someone’s trunk of their car. Jesus would be proud, praise!

So according to the old and the new testament, we are to arm ourselves and kick @SS when necessary. The problem that I’m confused about is whether we are supposed to let the robber take our money before or after we kill the guy? Maybe we are supposed to hope he robs us in the night so that we don’t have to figure our what he was up to and can just “let em have it full blast”?

How do we figure out whether to kill him or let him have our stuff? The way I see it, if I can’t get to my gun then he get’s to take what he want’s. If I can get to my gun first then it’s “lights out” unless he turns and runs immediately.

The ONLY time you employ a weapon is in self defense when you fear death or grave bodily injury of yourself or those around you.

Cindy my dear, a word please,

You are obviously in need of new reading glasses, and you are not a Christian, because you continue, at your own peril, to slap Jesus in the face by NOT following His command that you as a woman, are to remain SILENT! (Timothy 2: 11-12)

Since women like you are silly and easily led into error (2 Timothy 3:6), I expected nothing less than your child like retort on what you’re to do when confronted by an assailant trying to rob you. Your question is nonsensical because in both cases that you mention, the robber has your money in possession, get it? Whew, no wonder our God thinks of you Sisters of Eve as second class!

Yes, at nightfall, you have a better defense, if caught, to use a gun in justifying any harmful nature against you by the robber. He/she occupied your home, threatened you by their presence in any way, therefore, the person in question is fair game under most circumstances.

It is shocking to hear that if one has a gun for self-defense, that they can’t get to it in a timely manner like you stated! Only a woman would make a doltish response like this. YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT WITHIN REACH AT ALL TIMES, UNDERSTAND? THINK, WWJD?

Sorry Ted, some of your replies to your detractors are unwelcome and have been deleted careful with the tone of your replies to specific users, maybe pass over them.

(don’t feed the troll) even if he makes you laugh (don’t feed the troll) please.

just because the user name is Slanders doesn’t mean you get to do it to the other members of this website.

carry on.

LOL…point taken

Bear means to carry.

Here is a list of the rights specifically enumerated in the US Constituiton’s first 10 Amendments, also called the “Bill of Rights”:

No law establishing a state religion

No law prohibiting the free exercise of religion

No law abridging freedom of speech

No law abridging the freedem of the press

The right to peacefully assemble

The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances

The right to keep and bear arms

No forced quartering of soldiers during peacetime

Quartering of solders in wartime only as prescribed by law

No unreasonable searches and siezures of property

No warrants issued except upon probable cause. Said warrant must describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

No charges on capital offenses or “infamous” crimes unless indicted by a Grand Jury, unless during wartime and involving the armed forces.

No repeat trials for the same offense

No requirment to become a witness against yourself

No deprivement of life, liberty or property without due process of law

No taking of private property for public use without just compensation

Trials will be speedy and public

The right to a trial by jury

The right to confront the witnesses against you

The right to a lawyer

The right to compel witnesses to testify

No excessive bail

No excessive fines

No cruel or unusual punishments

If a right isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, that doesn’t mean the right doesn’t exist

The powers not given to the Federal Government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.

Which of these besides the right to keep and bear arms are you willing to give up to the state government?

A careful reading of the First Amendment reveals that “Congress shall make no law regarding the ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF” …. In actual application this protected the 6 – 8 States with established tax supported religious sects at the time the 1st Amendment was adopted; and prevented Congress from supressing any individial or State from practicing one or many religions. Only the 14th Amendment prevents a State from preventing an individual from freely exercising a religion. But that does not necessarily apply to a State the 1st Amendment prohbition against establishing or favoring a religion.

Don’t feed the troll :-)

“The powers not given to the Feds by the Constitution are reversed to the states or to the people.” It would be nice if the feds followed this in lieu of their crusade against medical marijuana. The feds don’t care about our civil rights anymore. They are all a bunch of worthless crooks, top to bottom.

So cool, so concise, so short and sweet, I copied it to Word, printed it out, and hung it on my refrigerator. Thank-you, TJ, for a fundamental study guide.

The Constitution was pretty darn good…and the Bill of Rights included, but only as an afterthought, through much deliberation.

The Constitution also codified SLAVERY, so it was far from the perfect document.

To be perfect, it should have codified and made requisite that those to be forced to live an existence of servitude to be the Tories, economic royalists, former slaveholders, and usurers ( which would include our current crop of ‘banksters’ ).

The Constitution did not codify slavery; there is no mention of it in the Constitution. The Constitution, however, failed to specifically outlaw that reprehensible institution and thus let it stand. This was done for expediency – if the Constitution had specifically outlawed slavery, there would have been no United States because the southern colonies would not have ratified. Who knows what would have happened.

There are many who viewed the US Civil war as “God’s judgement” against the United States for not outlawing slavery. Even Jefferson, who himself held slaves, said (forgive my memory if it is wrong) “[the institution of slavery] is like holding a wolf by the ears; you don’t like it, but you can’t let go.”

Interesting quote, TJ. Also, to Slowerfaster, what I remember about the Constitution’s perspective about Blacks (what my teacher told me,) was that the amendment that dealt with voting (?) only gave Black people 3/5ths worth of a vote because they were considered “property” and not equal to full representation. Or maybe I’m mistaken, and the 3/5ths representation has to do with computing the number of representatives by population, a computation which arrives at the number of U.S. Congresswo/men one state can have?

(I should have done my homework when I was learning this stuff….) You’re putting me to shame, TJ, but your posts are rejuvenating my brain cells….Thank-you for that!

Public Safety is a primary concern for wanting to renew the entire 9th Circuit…

Still, if the land is Federal, then they have no say. For State or local municipality, there is no issue – it is the State’s decision as far as 2nd Amendment rights go.

Now, the issue to really look at is the MASSIVE amount of land and resources that the government keeps gobbling up. That should be the real concern for public safety.

r0y said: “For State or local municipality, there is no issue – it is the State’s decision as far as 2nd Amendment rights go.”

That was true up until 2008/2010 when SCOTUS handed down Heller establishing the 2A as a fundamental individual civil right and in McDonald where they incorporated the 2A against the states.

While states and municipalities can make laws, they can’t violate a person’s civil rights when viewed with nearly strict scrutiny. i.e. they can regulate yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, but they can’t stop the local newspaper from reporting it.