There is significant evidence in the record that the county's position, since at least as far back as 2008, was that the gun shows could be held if the weapons were secured. They weren't shouting this from the rooftops by any means, but it IS in the record, including a discussion of cabling as the means to secure the guns.12 years of litigation and they just now say this? Holy Hanna, Batman!!
Similarly, a law does not substantially burden a constitutional right simply because it makes the right more expensive or more difficult to exercise
AMENDMENT XV
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--
Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
But you emphasized the wrong part. It says the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. . . ." So criminal disenfranchisement is okay under the Constitution.Yet there are those who are denied that "right" based on various legal whimsy such as being dishonorably discharged from the military or being a felon. The term for this is "Criminal Disenfranchisement".
But you emphasized the wrong part. It says the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. . . ." So criminal disenfranchisement is okay under the Constitution.
For the time being. As it pertains to 2nd Amendment rights, the matter is being pursued in the lower courts.So criminal disenfranchisement is okay under the Constitution.
I believe the poll taxes, like literacy tests, were specifically intended to, and had the effect of, keeping African-Americans from voting. Therefore, the poll taxes clearly abridged the right to vote based on race and/or previous condition of involuntary servitude.It is intresting that Voteing is brought into the mix. It would seem that excesive fees and charges could be attacked in the manner that POLL TAXES were found unconstitional. Those places, like Washington DC who charge 100 of dollars, I don't remember what the final total was for our Reporters efforts, would be inviolation of the same logic/reasons which caused the demise of the Poll TAX.
Any of you legal egales care to comment. I would like to hear your thoughts.
Filed April 4, 2012
Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Harry Pregerson,
Stephen Reinhardt, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain,
Michael Daly Hawkins, Susan P. Graber, Ronald M. Gould,
Richard C. Tallman, Consuelo M. Callahan,
Milan D. Smith, Jr., and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.
Order;
Concurrence by Judge M. Smith;
Dissent by Chief Judge Kozinski
ORDER
The panel believes that the parties should attempt to settle this dispute by agreeing on the conditions for holding gun shows at the Alameda County fairgrounds, with the assistance of mediation. The case is referred to the Circuit Mediation Office for mediation, and its submission is deferred for 45 days or pending further order of the court.
The Circuit Mediator will contact the parties as soon as possible and shall provide a status report to the panel no later than 45 days following this order.
________________________________________
M. SMITH, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I concur with the Court’s order sending this case to mediation. However, I would have attached a copy of a proposed disposition in this case so that the parties would know what they would face in the event mediation fails.
__________________________________________
KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, with whom GOULD, Circuit Judge, joins, dissenting:
The parties have not asked for mediation; they have said nothing that suggests mediation would be fruitful; when asked about it in court, they displayed obvious distaste for the idea. We overstep our authority by forcing the parties to spend time and money engaging in a mediation charade. Our job is to decide the case, and do so promptly. This delay serves no useful purpose; it only makes us look foolish. I want no part of it.
Not "they should go to mediation to settle the dispute," but rather "by agreeing on the conditions for holding gun shows." My gut feeling is that the panel really, really wanted to find for the Defendants, but simply could not find a way to do it without being overturned. So they did the next best thing, which was to try to leave the Defendants some bargaining power at mediation. Aguila Blanca may also have a point. Perhaps the 9th is trying to avoid letting this lawsuit have any precedential power.Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said:The panel believes that the parties should attempt to settle this dispute by agreeing on the conditions for holding gun shows at the Alameda County fairgrounds, with the assistance of mediation. The case is referred to the Circuit Mediation Office for mediation, and its submission is deferred for 45 days or pending further order of the court.