The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus curiae brief in the long-running California case of Nordyke v. King, which could result in the establishment of a strict scrutiny standard of review for every gun law in the country.
This column discussed the Nordyke case more than a year ago here, and things really haven’t changed, except for the calendar. Russell and Sallie Nordyke operated a gun show at the Alameda County fairgrounds. There as a shooting incident at the fair in 1998 that was totally unrelated to the gun show, but county officials used the incident to prohibit firearms on county property, including the fairgrounds.
This has become a rather celebrated First Amendment case as well as a Second Amendment situation, and 11 years is a rather long time for a case like this to be lingering in the courts.
As SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb of Bellevue put it, “Strict scrutiny is the standard of review to which all constitutionally-protected fundamental civil rights must be held. We believe, in the wake of Heller and McDonald, that the Ninth Circuit must act decisively to protect the Second Amendment from willy-nilly regulation by anti-gun public officials.”
So, just what does this have to do with Seattle and the Pacific Northwest? Think “parks gun bans.” Now, think toast…burnt black. Think about challenges to every goofy local gun law on the books, in the entire Ninth Circuit to begin with, and then nationwide. Gottlieb issued a press release this morning that pretty much sums things up.
“While gun prohibitionists were upset by the 2008 Heller ruling and demoralized by our victory this year in the McDonald case,” he said, “they are terrified of a strict scrutiny standard that could be established by the Nordyke case.”
This column has mentioned how court cases will now be aimed at establishing the definition of a “reasonable” gun law. Strict scrutiny would set a very high bar for any gun law.
About that 10-year-old with the gun…
Let’s talk about a “reasonable” gun control law. How about one that requires a blistered butt as punishment for 10-year-olds who try armed robbery on Metro buses?
The Seattle Times is carrying the story of a little miscreant who, along with three older buddies, allegedly tried to rob a 17-year-old, but the whole thing went south when the youngster reached into a backpack to pull the pistol, there was a struggle and the kid actually wounded himself. He reportedly had a .22-caliber pistol in the backpack, but a woman claiming to be his aunt said the gun was in his 17-year-old cousin’s backpack.
That works for us, because a pistol in the backpack of a 17-year-old is no more legally carried than one in the backpack of a 10-year-old under this state’s statutes. Perhaps the aunt can explain where her son got the handgun, huh?
This column has no problem with properly supervised youngsters safely shooting handguns and learning about firearms safety. Gun safety instruction and marksmanship training should begin at an early age, unlike on-the-job-training for armed robbery, which shouldn’t begin at any age.