Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Idea of a ban on gun shows in Tulsa floated
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Coded-Dude" data-source="post: 2068731" data-attributes="member: 16918"><p>Russell Allen NORDYKE; Ann Sallie Nordyke, dba TS Trade Shows; Jess B. Guy; Duane Darr; William J. Jones; Daryl N. David; Tasiana Westyschyn; Jean Lee; Todd Baltes; Dennis Blair; R.L. Adams; Roger Baker; Mike Fournier; Virgil McVicker, Plaintiffs-Appellants,</p><p>v.</p><p>Mary V. KING; Gail Steele; Wilma Chan; Keith Carson; Scott Haggerty; County of Alameda; County of Alameda Board of Supervisors, Defendants-Appellees.</p><p></p><p>AKA: <strong>Nordyke vs King</strong></p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>The Board of Supervisors of Alameda County, California had passed Ordinance No. 0-2000-22, codified at General Ordinance Code section 9.12.120, making it a misdemeanor to bring onto or to possess a firearm or ammunition on all County property.[1] Gun show promoters challenged the ordinance.</em></p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>January 8th, 2013: After 12 years of litigation, Nordyke v. King is finally over. The ruling did not impact the 2A right. Gun shows may be held on County property provided that the Nordykes' comply with the ordinance by tethering guns to tables like other merchandise at retail stores. The Nordykes' were not awarded prevailing party status by the court and despite petitioning the Supreme Court, fees and costs are not recoverable.</em></p><p></p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordyke_v._King" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordyke_v._King</a></p><p></p><p><a href="http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Nordyke_v._King" target="_blank">http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Nordyke_v._King</a></p><p></p><p>It looked like an inevitable win after the McDonald vs Chicago case, but the County changed its mind during the final EnBanc hearing and decided to allow firearms on their property before a ruling could be made in our favor(it likely would have gone in our favor). I really don't know if other counties want to get into an expensive decade long legal battle with the likes of SAF/CGF(it would likely take much less time to get a ruling this time around, but you never know). If they do, just point them in the direction of this lawsuit and they will probably change their minds very quickly.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Coded-Dude, post: 2068731, member: 16918"] Russell Allen NORDYKE; Ann Sallie Nordyke, dba TS Trade Shows; Jess B. Guy; Duane Darr; William J. Jones; Daryl N. David; Tasiana Westyschyn; Jean Lee; Todd Baltes; Dennis Blair; R.L. Adams; Roger Baker; Mike Fournier; Virgil McVicker, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Mary V. KING; Gail Steele; Wilma Chan; Keith Carson; Scott Haggerty; County of Alameda; County of Alameda Board of Supervisors, Defendants-Appellees. AKA: [B]Nordyke vs King[/B] [INDENT][I]The Board of Supervisors of Alameda County, California had passed Ordinance No. 0-2000-22, codified at General Ordinance Code section 9.12.120, making it a misdemeanor to bring onto or to possess a firearm or ammunition on all County property.[1] Gun show promoters challenged the ordinance.[/I][/INDENT] [INDENT][I]January 8th, 2013: After 12 years of litigation, Nordyke v. King is finally over. The ruling did not impact the 2A right. Gun shows may be held on County property provided that the Nordykes' comply with the ordinance by tethering guns to tables like other merchandise at retail stores. The Nordykes' were not awarded prevailing party status by the court and despite petitioning the Supreme Court, fees and costs are not recoverable.[/I][/INDENT] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordyke_v._King[/url] [url]http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Nordyke_v._King[/url] It looked like an inevitable win after the McDonald vs Chicago case, but the County changed its mind during the final EnBanc hearing and decided to allow firearms on their property before a ruling could be made in our favor(it likely would have gone in our favor). I really don't know if other counties want to get into an expensive decade long legal battle with the likes of SAF/CGF(it would likely take much less time to get a ruling this time around, but you never know). If they do, just point them in the direction of this lawsuit and they will probably change their minds very quickly. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Idea of a ban on gun shows in Tulsa floated
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom