If you aren't familiar with the case, Nordyke v. King is a suit to allow gun shows on the Alameda County fairgrounds. The case is also in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which Hawaii is in, so this case can directly affect us. Well Wednesday, the oral arguments were heard in the case. IMHO, there is a pretty strong reasoning for unbanning gun shows from the fairgrounds but make your own opinion and .

For those interested in another local opinion, HawaiiCCW.com posted his own.

I listened to this before going to work. The reasoning and closing statement was good and fair, but the judge sounded really resistant throughout the whole thing.

The case is also notable because in prior decisions, the Ninth Circuit determined that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the 14th Amendment, prior to the recent SCOTUS decision in McDonald. Remember, this was heard in California, and it was an (I believe) 3 Justice appellate court verdict decided on a 2 to 3 vote....It was scheduled to be heard "en banc" or by all the Justices of the Court but held pending the decision in McDonald. Now it is active again.....

Prior to McDonald the 2nd amendment right was not applied to the states in the Ninth Circuit. (At least they say that in these oral arguments as well).  Which is why his second amendment claim in district court was not entertained.

Prior to McDonald the 2nd amendment right was not applied to the states in the Ninth Circuit. (At least they say that in these oral arguments as well).  Which is why his second amendment claim in district court was not entertained.

Technically correct. Despite the acceptance of the Nordyke's argument that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the due process clause, the application of the incorporation never occured because the ruling was held pending the En Banc review. Then the En Banc review was stayed pending the outcome in McDonald. The issue now (as I understand it) is whether the other finding of the same appellate court was correct. At that time they found the ordinance preventing guns on county property was constitutional because the fairgrounds fell under the "sensitive place" doctrine. There also seem to be an issue on the level of scrutiny used.

I found it interesting that counsel for the County argued that as the fair grounds was a sensitive place "because we have people that come here with the expectation that the governmental body is going to be protecting them while they use the fair grounds...." When the Justice called her on that by asking if the prior court had determined that the fair grounds were a "sensitive place" she had to back down on that issue. I personally think the appellate's attorney could have used that to his advantage by arguing that using that line of thought the liability of the county would be increased. And, since much of the county's argument was predicated on the "fact" that the ordinance prohibitting guns made it "safer" and was a result of the various lawsuits files after the shootings on the fair grounds killed several people. Those lawsuits all alleged that the county failed to take the appropriate actions to prevent weapons on the fairgrounds.

And Dregs, I don't think any of the justices were "resistant" during the oral arguments. They were active in questionings both of the attorneys, which is common. A lot of that was making certain various points of law were clear and that the various arguments withstood careful analysis.