Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Nordyke v. King

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSecond AmendmentSecond Amendmentincorporationcommercial sale of armscounty propertygun showsordinance interpretation

Facts

Plaintiffs Russell and Sallie Nordyke sought to conduct gun shows at the Alameda County fairgrounds. Alameda County had enacted an ordinance making it a misdemeanor to bring or possess firearms or ammunition on county property, subject to an exception for authorized participants in certain productions or events if firearms not in their actual possession were secured to prevent unauthorized use. In briefing and argument, the County gave its official interpretation that a gun show qualifies as an "event" under the exception and that plaintiffs could display firearms for sale if the guns were secured, such as by a cable to a table, while still permitting buyers to inspect them. It was undisputed that plaintiffs were legally authorized to sell firearms and would sell only firearms lawful under federal and state law.

Issue

Whether Alameda County's ordinance, as officially interpreted by the County to allow gun shows on county property with firearms displayed for sale only if secured to prevent unauthorized use, violates plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights.

Rule

When a county ordinance is reasonably interpreted to permit gun-show vendors on county property to offer firearms for sale so long as firearms not in the participant's actual possession are secured to prevent unauthorized use, the ordinance imposes only a minimal regulation on the commercial sale of arms on county property and is permissible under the Second Amendment, regardless of what level of scrutiny applies.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Hillside County, Colorado, owns a fairground in Denver. A county ordinance broadly bars firearms on county property, but in litigation the county gives its official interpretation that licensed gun-expo vendors may display firearms for sale at county events if any firearm not in the vendor’s actual possession is locked to the display rack so customers can inspect it under supervision.

If the expo organizers bring a Second Amendment challenge seeking to invalidate the ordinance as applied to their planned event, which is the strongest argument for the county under the controlling rule?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that when a county ordinance is reasonably and officially interpreted to allow gun-show vendors on county property to offer firearms for sale so long as firearms not in their actual possession are secured to prevent unauthorized use, the regulation is only a minimal condition on the commercial sale of arms and is permissible. The court in the case did not decide the full scope of the Second Amendment or select a level of scrutiny; it held the claim failed regardless.