Subdeacon Joe Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Nordyke v. King Basically decided on intermediate scrutiny, but For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’sgrant of summary judgment to the County on the Nordykes’ First Amendment and equal protection claims. Because the Nordykes may still be able to allege sufficient facts to state a Second Amendment claim, we VACATE the district court’s denial of leave to amend the complaint to the extent that the denial was with prejudice, and REMAND for further proceedings. Each party shall bear its own costs. AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED. Only 39 pages, so it is a quick read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 Uh... my head would implode if I tried to read thirty-nine pages of this stuff right now... Can ya give us a reeeeally short synopsis...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted May 3, 2011 Author Share Posted May 3, 2011 Uh... my head would implode if I tried to read thirty-nine pages of this stuff right now... Can ya give us a reeeeally short synopsis...? Basically, a waffle. Victory to King and the Co. of Alameda re 1st Amendment and Equal protection. 2nd is a fundamental right but not subject to strict scrutiny. Nordyke, in light of Heller and McDonnald, can file again bringing in the 2nd as an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 I was born in Alameda County. 'Tain't the same place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted May 4, 2011 Author Share Posted May 4, 2011 Cam Edwards talks California civil rights attorney Chuck Michel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker, SASS #55963 Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Reading even a part of that gobbeldygook redefines my dislike for liars, I mean lawyers. Could they ever find a way to write in simpler terms without so much gibber-jabber. (Yes I know why they do it. It makes the law and its (mis)interpretation harder to understand.) I am glad that the writers of such are NOT involved in writing the SASS rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted May 5, 2011 Author Share Posted May 5, 2011 Reading even a part of that gobbeldygook redefines my dislike for liars, I mean lawyers. Could they ever find a way to write in simpler terms without so much gibber-jabber. (Yes I know why they do it. It makes the law and its (mis)interpretation harder to understand.) I am glad that the writers of such are NOT involved in writing the SASS rules. Other than maybe referencing other cases, that stuff is really pretty straight forward, in my opinion. Looking at a lot of the discussions over on The Wire about stage directions, I get the impression that SASS is way overloaded with lawyers. (still curious about the rule in the shooters handbook that prohibits carrying ammo in nose, ears, mouth, cleavage, "or other bodily orifice," or at least about the 'other bodily orifice' part). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker, SASS #55963 Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Seems awfully longwinded though! I agree about that rule, why worry about "other bodily orifice" Weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted May 5, 2011 Author Share Posted May 5, 2011 Seems awfully longwinded though! I agree about that rule, why worry about "other bodily orifice" Weird. I'm more curious about who hid what where, how they managed to get at it during a match, and did anyone get pictures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.