9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling sets the stage for another precedent-setting Second Amendment decision

By Jim Shepherd

When United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia penned the majority-opinion in the landmark Heller decision last year, he was roundly criticized by legal scholars (primarily from the dissenting position) for having created a document that left many legal questions regarding firearms unanswered.

Justice Scalia's response was simple: the broad decision was written, and the lower courts would use the Heller decision to create legal precedents from other cases going forward. In other words, precedent-setting cases on the nuances of the matter of the individual right to keep and bear arms enumerated by the Second Amendment would follow.

Seems Justice Scalia was as on target with that estimation as he was in the majority opinion.

Less than a year after Heller, the Circuit Courts of the United States seem to be headed back to the Supreme Court with contrary findings on gun rights. It is highly likely the Supreme Court will, once again, hear a case and decide another piece of precedent-setting law.

On April 20, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court, historically one of the nation's most liberal and anti-individual and collective-rights biased courts, ruled the Heller decision had abrogated an earlier decisions in the matter of Nordyke, et al, versus King.

In that case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Alameda County, California was within its rights to pass an ordinance making the possession of firearms or ammunition on county property a misdemeanor offense. That ruling meant Russell and Sally Nordyke's Alameda Gun Show would no longer be permitted.

In fact, the court wrote, the Heller decision prohibited the Privileges or Immunities clauses in state and local governments. Legal-ese aside, the court found that cities and municipalities could not use those local laws to unreasonably restrict firearms.

The Ninth Circuit's Nordyke decision sets the stage for another trip to Washington where the Supreme Court will be asked to decide the question of municipalities' use of Privileges or Immunities to restrict firearms.

That's because the Second Circuit Court has ruled Heller does not remove that option. In other words, The Ninth says Heller is individual in its definition of "rights" while the Second says it's still "collective" and subject to restriction by local ordinance.

So, the stage is set for yet another Supreme Court appearance for the Second Amendment. If, or more accurately, when, that case makes the high court, it's unlikely that Alan Gura, attorney for Dick Anthony Heller - an amicus curiae filer on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation in the Nordyke case - will be underestimated by anti-gun groups. Last year, he was a virtual unknown, arguing against a veteran attorney with an impressive win/loss record in the Supreme Court.

When the little guy wins against the bigger guy, that's not forgotten.

Gura's arguments against the District of Columbia's case may have occasionally been shaky in their delivery, but solid in their positions. In the Supreme Court, that's what matters most.

Republished from The Outdoor Wire.