Professional Documents
Culture Documents
V/rNNrE (68048)
COTINTYCOTINSEL
2 COLINTYOF ALAMEDA
a
J RICHARDS,WATSON & GERSHON
A Professional
Corporation
-/1 SAYREWEAVER-(rr69s7)
T. PETERPTERCE (160408)
5 355SouthGrandAvenue.4ó,hFloor
LosAngeles,CA 90071
6 Telephone: (213)626-8484
Facsimile:(213)'626-007
B
7 ppierce@rwglaw.com
8 Attomeysfor Defendants,
MARY V. KING. et al.
9
I ' 10
z.=
1/l
I I RUSSELLALLEN NORDYKE, er at., CaseNo. CV -99-04389-MJJ
o r j
u1 *
15 Plaintifß,
k Y DEFENDANTS'NOTICE OF MOTION
-== T 16
AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
¡¡l 3 v. JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS' THIRD
o k AMENDED COMPLAINT OR,IN THE
É
<
,
- r zà
q
L7 MARY V. KING, er al., ALTERNATIVE, FOR PARTTAL
( J 9 SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
,. 1 8I INDIVIDUAL CAUSESOF ACTION;
'r*.Jt" .
ñY¿ ' nI l MEMORANDUM OF POINTSAND
AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATIONS
OF RICK K. PICKERTNG,T. PETER
20 1 PIERCEAND JAMES KNUDSENIN
,rl SUPPORTTHEREOF
:'^ll DEPT.:
JUDGE:
DATE:
TIME:
1i
HonorableMartinJ. Jenkins
JulyI1,2006
9:30a.m.
25
26 I rhe
referenge"Çou1ty defendants"includes
countvorAlameda only the county of Alamcda and the
27 Board.oi-íup;;ì;;^. d'rhiräilåùr"*"¿ iíit, oiããiorFebruary
'"ãu'iJ;;;; name
individuaióin"".,ã. r4,
33f,åfiårîä,ïff*l,i'o à;r;ä;, inanexcrusivery
28
-1-
DEFENDANTS'NOTICEOF MO
AMENDEDCOMPLAINT
t206t\0002\877766.4
1 5. The Ordinance passesmuster under the California Constitution's protection of free
23
24
25
26
27
28
-l-
DEFENDANTS'
NorlcE oF MorloN ANDMorIoN FoRsuMMARyiirocrt¡eNr oNIpLnl¡¡rtFFS'TI-trRD
AMENDEDCOMPLAINT
t2061\0002\877766.4
I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 PAGE(S)
a
J CASES:
4 Abboud v. 1N^S
140F.3d843(9,hCir. 1998) . . . . .22
5
Associat.ionof National Advertisers v. Lungren
6 44F.3d726(9thCir.t994) ......10
Attorney General v. Irtsh People, Inc.
684F:2d928(D.C.Cii.T982) ........19
I
Bruce v. Ylst
9 351 F.3d 1283(gthCir. 2003) . . .23
l0 Califoryg,Assn. of the Physically Handicapped,Inc. v. FCC
721F.2d667 ( g t hC i r . 1 9 8 3 ) ...23
11
Charter-Commc'ns,Inc. v. County of Santa Cruz
z.= L2 203 F.Supp.2drr}2(N.D.cãl. 2001)
o
. 1 <
= . . . 10
U1 P
r v
rrJ
¿ 13 Christy v. Hodel
3
t 5 ¿ 8 5 7 F . 2 d r 3 2 4 (C
9 ti rh.1 9 8 8 ) ........22
2.9 t4
Ori Clark v. Comm.for Creative Non-VÌolence
ø t E
l - Y
< _ o
i5 468 U.S.288 (1984) . s. 14. 1 5
-== i T6 Clementev. Stateof California
t n 1
ê E 40 Cal.3d202 (Cal. t9S5) t1
É . ø
< - L7
T z
( J 9 Clementev. State of California,
.:. < 18 4 0 C a 1 . 3 d 2 0 2 , 2 1C9a l . R p t r4. 4 5 ( C a li.9 8 5 ) j . .. .......
i. -
'y. il
'at¿9¿
T9 Crownover v. Musick
9 C a 1 . 3 d 4 0 5 ( C1a9l 7. 3 ) .......18
20
Freeman v. City of SantaAna
2T 6 8 F . 3 d1 1 8 0 ( 9 d ' C1i r9. 9 5 ) .......19
22 G.K. Ltd. Travelv. City of Lake Osweso
4 3 6 F . 3Ld0 6 4 Q C
t ti r . 2 0 0 6 ) . " . . . . ...:.. .........7
23
Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons
24 24Cal.4th468(Ca1.2000) ........ i8
25 Heffron v. Int'l Soc'yfor Krishna Consciousness,Inc.
452U.S.640(1e81)... . . . . 1 .1 4 . 1 s
26
Jewsfor Jesus,Inc. v. Port of Portland
27 200s WL 1109698(D.Or.200s) . . . . . 16.17
28 -ii-
DEFENDANTS'NOTICE
OF MOTIONAND MOTIONFORSUMMARY JUDGMENTON PLAINTIFFS'THIRD
AMENDEDCOMPLAINT
I 2061\0002\877766.4
I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1
(Continued)
a
J
Johnson v. Robison
4 41sU.S.36T(1e74)
5 Johnson v. Robison,
41s U.S. 361,S.Cr.1160,39 L.Ed.2d,38g
(1974)
6 . . .22
Los Ang^eles
Alliance_for Survwal v. City of Los Angeles
-
22Cal.4th352(Cat.2000)
..... iB
8 Madsen v. Boise State (Jniversitv
976F.2d r2I9 (9thCir. {sez¡
9 . T6.L7
Mlikotin v. Cíty of Los Angeles
10 6 4 3 F . 2 d 6 5 2 1õ9i'rh. t e a t ¡ .......23
11 Morris v. Municìpal Court
32 CaL3d553(Cat.I9BZ)
z.= L2 l8
O =
T <
L ô P
Nordykev. King
r v ã
ur3
t3 319F.3dt 185(9'hCir.2003)
t 9 ¿
I4 One World One Famiþ
Noy r. City and County of Honolulu
2 O
1 ; Â
O y j
ø t *
76F.3d 1009 (9'hCir. 199ô
l - V
o _ o
15
People v. Shuey
-== Í L6
<n1 13 Cal.3d835 (Cat. Lgjs)
o k 11
É,ø
<
- T zt
T7 People v. Shuey,
( J 9 13 Cal.3d835,120Cat.Rptr.83(Cal. tg75)
.,N a 18 1t
\ .Y. PTI, Inc. v. Phílip Morris, Inc.
ú9¿ 19 100F.Supp
.2d II79 (C.D.Cal.2000) t0
20 Snyder v. Massachusetts
2 9 1U . S e
. 7( 1 9 3 4 )
2T .......22
Snyder v. Mossachusetts.
22 2 9 1U . S . 9 7 , 5 S
4 . C r . 3 3(01 9 3 4 ) 22
23 SpoknneArcade, Inc. v. Citv of Spokane
7s F.3d663 (9thCir. ré16¡ . . . . 10. 1l
24
Stockton Theatres,Inc. v. palermo
25 4 7 C a L . 2 d 4 6 9 ( Cta9ls. 6 ) .......ll
26 Stockton Theatres,Inc. v. palermo.
47 Ca1.2d469,304p.2d7 (Cal. 1956)
27 11
28
-fl1-
DEFENDANTS'NorIcE
oF MorIoN ANDMorroN FoRsuMMAny ruocprpNT oN pLATNTTFFS'EìRD
AMENDEDCOMPLAINT
1206t\0002\877766.4
I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(Continued)
2
a PAGE(S)
J
TeenRanchv. Udow
4 3 8 9 F . S u p p . 2 d 8( W
2 7. D . M i c h . 2 0 0 5 ) ......22
5 ThePitt Newsv- Fisher
215F.3d354(3'dCir.2000) . . . li
6
UnitedMine Workersv. Gibbs
7 388U.S.7Ts(1966)
8 United Statesv. Alisal Water Corp.
431 F.3d 643(9'hCir. 2005)
9
United Statesv. O'Brien
10 3e1 U.S. 367 (1968) L-3,6-9,13
1 ,g
11 Vancev. Bradley
440 U.S. e3 (1979)
z.= T2
O =
(n? virginia PharmacyBoard v. virginía citizensconsumercouncil
r v ¿
rJJ 3
13 4 2 5U .S .7 4 8(1 9 7 6 ).. . . . . l/l
l l
r 9 ;
2 . 9 l4 lltard v. Rock Against Racism
O V
U),: 4 e 1U . S . 7 8( 119 8 e ) .......e
15
k Y Washingtonv. Glucltsberg,
_= = Í 16
t n S 521 U.S. 702, 117S.Ct.2258,138L.Ed.2d772 (1,997) . . . . 22
a k
M . q
< Zà L7 WesfernStatesPaving^Co.y. Iïqhington StateDept. of Transp.
T
( J 9 407 F.3d.983(9thCir. 2005) . . . . . a/1
z.a
- - + 18
,. ' ¡r. Wine &. Spirits Retailers, Inc. v. Rhode Island
V¿Va. 19 418 F.3d36 (1'tCir. 2005)
20
2L STATUTES:
22 27 C.F.R.g 478.100(b)
(re88) t2
23 3 9 1U . S . , 3 7 6
24 468U.S.,295.
25 CaliforniaPenalCode:
26 Section12071(bX1XB) t2
27 Section(a)(1)(A)& (E) 25
28
-lv-
DEFENDANTS'
NOTICEoF MorIoN ANDMorroN FoRsuMMARyruocveur oN pLAINTTFFS'THIR;
AMENDEDCOMPLAINT
1206t\0002\877766.4
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(Continued)
2
I
PAGE(S)
California Penal Code: (Continued)
4
Section1202L 25
5
Section12050 25
6
Section12050(a)(
1)(A) 25
Section 12050(d) 25
8
Section12051(a)(1) 24
9
F e d e r a l R u l eosf C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 5 6 ( f ) ........3
10
11
z.= T2
o Ë
-( r s9
r v -
U J 3
13
c 9 ¿
z.? T4
Os'
c n :
15
k *
-== Í T6
<¡t 3
É
<
q
à t7
T Z
( J 9
18
)
. , t
r.{¿ t9
20
21.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANTS'NOTICEOF MOTIONAND MOTIONFORSUMMARY JUDGMENTON PLAINTIFFS'THIRD
AMENDEDCOMPLATNT
1206t\0002\87'7766.4
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES2
2
a
J I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
9 Plaintifß, the operatorsof tradeshowsat which thousandsof guns are displayedand sold,
11 protection claims. In rushing to court, plaintiffs rebuffed multiple invitations of the Alameda
z.= t2 County Fair Association to explain how plaintifß would conduct their shows und,erthe
O =
T <
(.rIP
t v ¿
r ! 3
13 Ordinance. Plaintiffs insteadclaimedit "impossible" to operatea"profitable gunshow,,under
t 5 ¿
z.? T4 the Ordinance. Neither the U.S. Constitutionnor the California Constitutionrecognizesany right
oyj
(n*
j - Y 15 to conducta profitable enterprise.The governingcaseauthoritiesexpresslystatethat the
< o
-=È f 16 financial impact of a regulation has no place in a constitutional analysis of that regulation.
<n1
Ê k
É.ø
< àz
--f-
L7 Accordingly, plaintiffs must first demonstratehow they would conduct their trade showsunder
( J 9
18 the Ordinance,and must do so before bringing an as-appliedconstitutional challengein court.
.U
7¿V¿ 1,9 otherwise, plaintiffs have no standingto maintain this lawsuit.
22 391 U.S. 367, 88 S.Ct. 1673,20 L.Ed.2d672 (1965). The Ordinanceis within the constitutional
ôa
¿J power of the County; the Ordinance furthers the important governmentalinterest of reducinggun
25
' The County
26 earlier filed a Motion for SummaryJudgmentfor hearingon April 25,2006.
Plaintifß soughta cbntinuanceof the hearingund;;F.d.CÞ."s0(Ð on tft" grói"¿ thåt they'
required more time discovery. fne Court granted thè'requestãnd vacatedthe
27 lo^^co¡nplete
hearingdate. Plaintiffs, however,did noi propou"d ani additionaldiicovery on the Countyafter
the Court vacatedthe hearine date.
28 -3-
DEFENDANTS'NOTICEOF MOTIONAND MOTIONFORSUMMARY JUDGMENTON PLAINTIFFS'THIRD
AMENDEDCOMPLAINT
12061\0002\877766.4
1 and the incidental restriction on plaintifß' alleged free expressionrights is no greaterthan
2 necessaryto further that interest. For thesereasons,the Ordinanceis valid under both
the federal
a
J and California constitutions.
<
.
t
q
t7 The City is entitledto judgment as a matterof law on plaintifß' Third Amended
T z
( J 9
ts
18 Complaint.
- v .
Eþ. t9 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
26 subd.(b)).
28
-4-
DEFENDANTS'NOTICEOF MOTIONAND MOTIONFORSUMMARYJUDGMENTON PLAINTIFFS'THIRD
AMENDEDCOMPLAINT
12061\0002\8'17766.4
1 the Board of Supervisors:
26
3 Mr. Kilmer
27 admittedthe authenticityof this letter in his declarationdatedSeptember30,
1999,filed in supportof plaintiffs' unsuccessfulapplicationfor a restrainingorder uttä u.t
injunction.
28
-5-
DEFENDANTS,NoTICEoFMoTIoNANDMoTIoNFoRSUMMARYJ
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1206t\0002\877766.4
1 facts are introduced below as they becomerelevant to the analysis.
2 TII. ARGUMENT
a
J
6 explained fuither below, plaintifß have refusedto provide the information necessaryfor
determining how theirtrade shows may be held under the Ordinance. The Court should
11
z.= T2 I. The County's important interest in protecting thepublic justifies any incidental
(_,, Ê
- <
ø r P
( v ¿
r.! 3
T3 limitation on plaintiffs' expressiveconduct resultingfrom the ordinance.
c9¿
2.3 1.4 Plaintifß speculatein the TAC that their possessionof firearïns on County property
Oni
(n\
l---: V
< _ È
15 during their "gun shows" conveysa political messagethat otherswill understand.Thus,
-== i t6 plaintiffs concludethat possessingf,rrearmsis protectedexpressiveconduct. That conclusion
<tl 1
| J <
É . q
1',7 doesnot assistplaintiffs, as the County now explains.a
< à
- T Z
( J 9
- r
18 The SupremeCourt iteratedin O'Brien: "This Court has held that when 'speech,and
Ð.
7¿9¿ 1,9 'nonspeech'
elementsare combinedin the samecourseof conduct,a sufficiently important
24
25 4 Plaintifß
recentlyserved^gpon the County (1) a host of selÊservingdeclarations
executedby-yariousof the.plaintiffq (2) a video rõpioãuctionof interviewJof other individuals,
26 and (3).an alleged-"expert's"report. ihe declaratiôns,interviewi u"a purport to
reveal "messages"that gun posiessionallegedly.onuéyr. AII of these"*p.Jti"pott
itêms areirrelevant
27 becausethe County assumeifor purposesõf tnis motioí that the possessionof a gun hassome
communicative aspect,thus triggèring the O'Brien analysis.
28 -6-
DEFENDANTS'NOTICEOF MOTIONAND MOTIONFORSUMMARY JUDGMENTON PLAINTIFFS'THIRD
AMENDEDCOMPLAINT
t206t\0002\877766.4
I Govemment; [2] if it furthers an important or substantialgovemmental interest;
[3] if the
2 governmentalinterestis urrelated to the suppressionof free expression;andl4lif the incidental
5 This Court already concludedthat the four-prong O'Brien test is satisfied. See Order at
6 pp. 7-8. With respectto the first O'Brien factor,the County's ban on the possessionof firearms
7 on County property is within the County's constitutional police power and plaintiffs have never
8 disputedthat.
10 property furthers the sameimportant public health and safety interest which this Court aLready
11 has recognized: reducing the risk of gunshot fatalities and injuries in the County. See Order at
z.= L2 p. 7. The purposeof the Ordinanceis clear on its face:
O =
- #
c ô P
r v ¿
ur3
13 "The Board of Supervisorsfinds that gunshot fatalities and injuries are of
o = -"pt¿*i"_proportions in Alameda County. During the first five yearsof the
= 2 t4 1990's 879 homicides were committed úsing fireãrms, and an additional T,647
O i victims were.hospitalizedwith gunshotinjuães. Fireárms are the leading
tt) =
15 causeof death among young people betwéenthe agesof 15 and 24 in Alámeda
k E
_= = Í Çoy!Y; BetweenJuly 1, 1996añd June30, 1997:ß1juveniles were arrested
t n J
T6 in Oaklandfor gun-relatedoffenses. On luiy 4, tqgg a snootingincidenton
ô E the Alameda County Fairgroundsresultedin severalgunshot wõunds, other
M , ø
< àz I7 injuries and panic among fair goers. Prohibiting the
-1 iossessio" ofi"Lurïns on
( J 9 County property will promotg.tþe public healthãnd räf"ty by contributing to
i ,
18 the reduction of gunshot fatalities ànd iniuries in the Cou-ntí."
,,- D. (Ex. A, subd.(a)).
V{¿ 19
"[T]hose challenging the legislativejudgment must convince the court that the legislative
20
facts on which the classification ts apparently basedcould not reasonablybe conceivedto be true
2T
by the governmentaldecisionmaker."vancev. Bradley,440 U.S. 93, rl1, 99 S.Ct. g3g,59
22
L.Ed-zd 17l (1979) (emphasisadded). Courtserectsuch a high hurdle for constitutional
ZJ
plaintiffs because"[courts] generallydefer to the legislativebody passingthe law in determining
24
whether the government's ends are advancedby a regulation." G.K. Ltd. Travel v. CÌty of Lake
25
Oswego,436F.3d 1064,1073(gthCir. 2006).
26
As the face of the Ordinancemakesclear,firearmswere involved in over 2,000deaths
27
and injuries in Alameda County during a f:e-year period (Igg0-ßg5) beforethe adoptionof the
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT
12061\0002\877766.4
I Ordinance. Furthermore,during the IndependenceDay celebration on July 4, Iggg,several
6 V/ith respectto the third O'Brien factor, this Court already found that the County's
Ordinanceis unrelatedto the suppressionof free expression- See Order at pp. 8-9. The
Court
8 correctly determinedthat the comments of a County Supervisorcannot serve as a basis for
9 concluding that the Ordinance suppressesfree expression. ,S¿eOrder at pp. 8-9. The Court
may
10 not considerthe motives of individual legislatorsin evaluatingthe legality of legislativeaction.
11 Indeed,the Court aptly noted in its earlier Order denyinginjunctive relief that courts',.will
not
z.= t2 strike down an otherwiseconstitutionalstatuteon the basisof an allegedillicit legislative
O =
- <
<tr P
r v ¿
U J 3
13 motive."'Orderat p.9,lines 1-2,quotingO'Brien,391U.S. at 3g3.
t 9 ¿
-
a
o
=
1,4 Whether a statutesuppressesfree expressionmust be determined, therefore,without
oYi
<n\
15 regardto the motives of the legislators who voted to adopt it. Here, the Ordinanceseeks
k E to
-== i 1,6 protect the public health and safety without regard,to the suppressionof speech. See Ord.erat
<na
o k
É.ø
< ì
- T z
T7 p' 8, lines 10-11. A ban onPosse.s.s
ion of ftrearmson County property doesnot in anyway
( J 9
18 interfere with plaintiffs' right to voice their views about guns, or about whether there is
'--g or should
ñ{. t9 be a right to own guns, or about any other topic related to guns (or not). The Ordinance
simply
20 doesnot regulate in any way what plaintiffs may or may not say when they visit County property.
2T The fourth and final O'Brien factor - that the incidental restriction on speechbe no
27 narrowly tailored to achieve the important govemmental interest of protecting public safety
at
28
-8-
DEFENDANTS'
NorIcE oF MoÏoN ANDMorroN FoR suMMARy ruocueNr oN pLAINTIFFS;ìffi
AMENDED COMPLAINT
t206r\0002\877766.4
I public events. As the Court observedin its previous Order, severalpotentially less onerous
9 property. Plaintifß' First Claim for relief for violations of the First Amendment fails as amatter
l1 h tryrng to avoid O'BrÌ.en s fatal impact, ptaintiffs will argue that the Ordinancehas not
z.= t2
( J = actually reducedthe risk of crime at gun shows. But the degreeto which the Ordinancehas or
Ø l P
l v -
r ! 3
13 hasnot achievedthe County's goal at gun showshasno place in a constitutionalanalysis. The
c 9 i
z.= t4 County's important governmentalinterest in reducing gun violence need not be tetheredto
O ø
v ) l
l - ¿ 15 plaintiffs'individual circumstances.,SeeClarkv. Comm.þr CreativeNon-Violenc¿,468U.S.
< _
_= =T 16 288,296-297,104 S.Ct. 3065, 82L.Ed.2d22l (1,984)(ín as-applted challengeto regulation
u1 =
ô k
E . ø
< - t7 prohibiting sleepingovernightin a federalpark, "the validity of th[e] regulationneednot be
- Z
( J p
18 judged solely by referenceto the demonstrationat hand"); Ward v. Rock Against
Racism, 49I
"rë
V¿9¿ t9 U'S. 781, 801, 109 S.Ct.2746,105L.Ed.2d661 (1989)(emphasisadded)(evenif challengeto
22 problem the govemment seeksto correct, not on the extent to which itfurthers the government's
26 the validity of the ordinancedid not dependon the extent to which it furthered the city's interest
27 with regard to plaintiffs' sales,but dependedon the extent to which it furthered the city's overall
28 -9-
DEFENDANTS'NOTICEOF MOTIONAND MOTIONFORSUMMARY JUDGMENTON PLAINTIFFS'THIRD
AMENDEDCOMPLAINT
1206r\0002\877766.4
1 goal of protecting public safety).
9 legislativequestions);
PTI, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc.,I00 F.Supp.2dltTg,lZ03 (C.D.Cal.2000)
21, plaintiffs a profit on their tradeshows. In SpokaneArcade,Inc. v. City of Spokane,T5 F.3d 663
26 entry into a market where the aggrievedparty might exerciseher rights, and distinguishesthis
27 inquiry from any examination of successwithin the market at issue." Id. at 666. "[I]n the
28 -10-
DEFENDANTS'NOTICEOF MOTIONAND MOTIONFORSUMMARYJUDGMENTON PLAINTIFFS'THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT
t206r\0002\877766.4
1 absenceof any absolutebar to the market it is irrelevantwhether'[a regulation]will resuit in
2 lost profits, higher overheadcosts,or even prove to be commercially unfeasiblefor an adult
4 Video would be forced out of business,the ordinancesdo not pose any intrinsic limitation on the
8 Retailers,Inc. v. RhodeIsland,4l8 F.3d 36,47 (1't Cir. 2005) ("[plaintiff s] real complaintis
9 that [the statute] will have the incidental effect of suppressingor eliminating the market demand
t0 for the particular type of businessadvice that [plaintiff] offers . . . . That circumstancedoesnot
l1 suffice to hoist the red flag of constitutional breach: the First Amendment does not guaranteethat
z.= t2 speechwill be profitable to the speakeror desirableto its intendedaudience.");Thepitt Newsv.
( J Ë
U ) P
É .
LrJ 3
d 13 Fisher, 2I5 F.3d 354, 366 (3'dCir. 2000) ("'[E]conomic loss . . . doesnot constitutea first
t 9 ¿
z.= t4 amendmentinjury. The inquiry for First Amendment purposesis not concemedwith economic
o rí
q n E
15 impact; tather, it looks only to the effect of [an] ordinanceupon freedom of expression.'
k Y
_= = i T6
<¡> a [citations.]") (internalquotationsomitted.).Accordingly, plaintifß' concernsthat they cannot
ê k
M , ø
< ì L7 profitably conducta "gun show" are irrelevantto any constitutionalanalysis.s
T z
( J 9
- ,- k
l
18 Furthermore, "gun shows" are def,rnedunder federal and state law without referenceto
.-9
Xt-{¿. L9 firearms sales or vendors. Under federal and California law, a "gun show" is "a.function
20
' Plaintiffs
2L 1ake.ryuglrof the passingobservation s rn Norclykev. King, Z2gF.3d,1266, '
l?9q.(9:'cir. 2000), .an!.i2Nqrdytce i. t<tn{,27cat. tiB7s,BBz,"n 8 c;i.Rîrr.2d.76r (cal.
2002),thatit would be difficutt to conductäprofitablegunrho* without guris. SeeTAC at p. 9,
22 n. 2. Thoseobservations, however,arenot germaneto lhe constitutionalq"uestions beforethe
ôô Court.Furthermore,thoseobservations areiot, asplaintiffs erroneouslyuil"g" (TAC at\ 4i),
ZJ
"the law of the case." The "law of the case-_doctrine preservesthroughouttñe ittigation'iegai
a/1
LA
conclusions reachedby anappellate goury.Wåenanappellate court'rstatesin itsãfiniòn ã
principleor rule of lu* n-ecesiary to thedecision,thatiriincipleor rule ¡ecomesthe law of the
caseandmustbe to thro_ugho_ut its subsequenfprogress. . ."' Clementev. Stateoj
25 "{4"1q{
a_0
Çglrf9ry,to, Çq1,3d 20??zLL,2t9 car.Rprr. ++i lcat^.19i5),citingrioptn r. ihu"y, tícat.:¿
831,841, 120Cal'Rptr.83
26 çal. 1975).Tiredoctriàedoesnóí applito observatiottr
plaintiffscanconducta profitable
(i... *fråtrt.t
gunshow)superfluous to thedecision."The discuòsion or
determination of a poinfnotnecessary to thé dispositionof a questio"tft"t is ãàcisiveof the
27
lPleal is generally_rgegdgd asobiterdictumandnot asthe law of the case." StocktonTheatres,
Inc. v. Palermo,47 Cal.2d469,474, 304p.Zd7 (Cal. 1956).
28 -11-
DEFENDANTS'NOTICEOF MOTIONAND MOTIONFORSUMMARYJUDGMENTON PLAINTIFFS'THIRD
AMENDEDCOMPLAINT
12061
\0002\877766.4
1 sponsoredby any national, stateor local organization,devotedto the collection, competitive use,
a
L or other sporting use of firearms, or an organizationor associationthat sponsorsfunctions
J devoted to the collection, competitive use, or other sporting use of firearms in the community."
6 shows" be venuesfor firearms vendors or firearms sales. The statutesare silent on theseissues.
Thus, the heart of plaintifß' lawsuit - that the Ordinancehas renderedtheir "gun shows"
8 unprofitable - is born of a financial concern not even recognizedby the federal and state
11 possible for plaintiffs to conduct their trade shows consistentwith the Ordinance. The TAC lists
z . =
O = L L
1 1 15 primary purposesfor plaintiffs ' tradeshows:
- <
U ) ?
u Q l J "[1] To obtainpoliticat information regardingmy ConstitutionalRights,
rrru -bear
t 9 ¿ including but not limited to the right toleep ãnd firearms; t2l To
- 3
a =
1 4 assemblewith other individuals and oryarlàations to discussthe issuesand
O ñ genping legislatio_nthat effect my Constitutional Rights, including but not
P Þ
< -
t5 limited t^o,myyght to own, possêss,and trade fireaimsi[3] To oñtain the
latest information regarding
= i
L6 -the.safe,responsibleand lawfül ownership and,
(, :i
storageof firearms;l+] fg obtain the latèst information regarding the firearms
U < industry.,with specific referenceto_developmentsin technõlogy aîd safety;
É, ø 1- ' '[S]'
<
- Z
à rl To purchaseand./orsell firearms, hrearm âccessories.ammutrÏiion. safetv
+
( J 9
e
devicesand_ gun safes;[6] To petition political cand,idates,both thóseelécted
:-ã 18 and curently campaigning,on issuesof governmentpolicy;
[7] To obtain
. t . information from þolitical candidates,bo-ththosein om""'u.t¿äampaigning,
7.Y 19 on issuesof governmentpolicy; [8] To obtain and|oroffer for sateirisióricãi
and philosophic information from organizationssympatheticto, but not
20 directly involved, with firearms issues;[9] To oUtäinmørmatión and engage
in the trade.of sta_mps and_coins;t10l Tò óbtaitt information and engageinîn.
2T trade of knives;.[11] To obtain inlormation and engagein the tradeöf"antiques
and./orother collectibles;[12] T9 obtain informatiõn-*d in the tradeof
22 historical and military mernoiabilia;[13] To obtain informaiioã
"ngug"and engagein
the tradeof political suchàs: 6uttons,bumper-stickers,t-shirt"s,"
^a _souvenirs
L) books and signg¡[1a] To circulateand sign petitions for stateaná local
initiatives;_[and][15] To engagein the feìtowstripand affiliation of like-
24 minded individualsin a market-placeof ideasanä products,and to enjoy our
common cultureand collective heritage." (TAC afl sl (a) through (õ)).
25
27 listed purposefor which the presenceof a firearm may be preferableis the purchaseand saleof
28 -12-
DEFENDANTS'NOTICEOF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTON PLAINTIFFS'THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT
t206t\0002\877766.4
I that firearm. More importantly, the Ordinancecan accommordate
plaintifß' statedgoals; the
2 Ordinancecontainsan exceptionto the ban on possessionof firearms,allowing the following
a
J activities on County property: "The possessionof a firearm by an authorizedparticipant
in a
-A motion picture, television, video, danceor theatrical production or event,provided that
when
5 such firearm is not in the actual possessionof the authorizedparticipant, it is secured prevent
to
6 unauthorizeduse." (Ex. A, subd.(f(a)). The unqualifiedrvord "event" preserves
the possibility
- that any number of eventsmay satisfy the exception. The Alameda County Fair Association
has
8 approvedeventsother than motion picture,television,video, danceand theatricalproductions
25
26
27 /t/
28
-13-
DEFENDANTS'NorlcE
oF MorIoNANDMorIoNFoRsuMMAniruocueNToNpLAINTIffiRD
AMENDEDCOMPLAINT
12061\0002\877766.4
1 2- Separatelyand índependently,the County's Ordinance is a reasonabletime,place or
T¿9¿. L9 content-neutral. As this Court has held, the Ordinance simply regulatesthe possessionof guns.
23 maintaining parks in an attractivecondition, available for all to use. Id. at296. The Court did
.tA
LA not examinewhether the regulationfurtheredthe govemment'sinterestwith respectto plaintifß'
25 desireto sleepovernight in the park: "it is evidentfrom our casesthat the validity of this
26 regulation need not bejudged solely by reference to the dentonstrationat hand." Id. at297
28
-r4-
DEFENDANTS'NOTICE OF MOTIONAND MOTION FOR S{.IMMARYJI.IDGMENTON PLAINTIFFS'THIRD
AMENDEDCOMPLAINT
12061\0002\877766.4
t justify its regulation in referenceto the demonstrators'particular activity.
Id. at29:..
2 The Ordinance here furthers a significant, and urgent, public purpose:reducingthe risk of
J shootingsand gun violence on County property. This Court statedin its earlier Order denying
4 injunctive relief that this governmentalinterest is all the more compelling under Heffronbecause
5 the activity being regulatedtakesplace at the County's public fairgrounds. Order at p. 10, lines
2l Glenn County Fairgroundsin Orland; and one at the Agri-Center in Tulare (Ex. F; Declarationof
24 Declaration of T. Peter Pierce at fl 3). Plaintiffs have many alternative forums in which to
25 communicate their views about firearms, both with and without possessingfirearms.
28 -i5-
DEFENDANTS'NOTICEOF MOTIONAND MOTIONFORSUMMARYJUDGMENTON PLAINTIFFS'THIRD
AMENDEDCOMPLAINT
t2061\0002\877766.4
I Claim alleging violations of the First Amendment.
2
a
J 3. Plaintffi haveprevented the Countyfrom apptying the Ordinance to their trade shows
8 the universify did not offer free handicapparking permits on campusbut provided free non-
9 handicapparking. Id. at 1220. The studentdid not appty for a handicappermit and did not seek
10 a waiver of the handicappermit fee. Nor did he pay the fee and seek a refun¿. Id.
11 The Ninth Circuit held that the studentlacked standing to challengethe handicapparking
z.= T2 permit fee without first subjectinghimself to the required proceduresfor obtaining the permit:
O =
( , P
r v &
ur3
13 "There is a long line of cases,hgyøever,that hold that aplaintiff lacks standingto
c9¿ challenge^arule or policy to which he has not submitted hiil;lf Uy ã.tuuffy
2.3 I4 applyrng for the desiredbenefit. ._.. tïl Requiring aparty to have ácmal\y'
Orl confronted the policy he now challerì[ðs iniourt"has seíeral prudentiafand
< n \
15 practical advantages.To begin with, ît establishesthe existenceof a well-defined
k E conkoversy between the_partie.s.
-== i . . . tf] Requiring a formal application as a
<¡t a
I6 condition for brin-ginga lawsuit also ièrves ihe sa"lutaryobjeitive of ensuringthat
Õ k only thoseindividualswho cannot,resolve their disputáswithout judicial
É . ø
<
- T zì
I7 intervention wind up^in-court.. . tIl Finally, ,"quiring a formal åppiiðãtion as the
( J 9 normal prerequisite for bringing a èàseto cõurt timits îhose who can claim injury
,n-. Q. 18 from a policy-that qay not havð harmed them at all, or that they máy *t hur6
t ' u known about." Madsen, 976 F-2d at 1220-1222. "u"r,
7¿9¿ T9
22 activities at Portland lnternational Airport becauseplaintiffs did not apply for the permit required
27 plaintifß explain how they would conduct their trade show at the Fairgroundsconsistentwith the
28 -16-
DEFENDANTS'NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR STIMMARYJUDGMENTON PLAINTIFFS'THIRD
AMENDEDCOMPLAINT
r206t\0002\877766.4
1 Ordinance(Ex. B; Pickering decl. at tf 3).
4 plaintifß' counsel agaíndeclinedto provide a plan as to how plaintiffs would conduct a show
5 consistentwith the Ordinance: "I carutotf,rndany languagethat requires them to submit a written
8 demonstratedhow they would comply with the Ordinance,the Alameda County Fair Association
9 could not reservespacefor plaintiffs' trade shows (Ex. E; pickering decl. at 6).
tf
10 To date,plaintiffs have never provided a plan for conducting their trade shows at the
ll County Fairgroundsconsistentwith the County's Ordinance (Pickering decl. at 7). The County
fl
=.= t2
o = explainedabove in great detail how plaintiffs could hold their eventswithout violating the
T <
U ) P
r v &
rrJ 3
13 Ordinance. Plaintiffs, however, have opted not to conduct their trade shows attheFairsrounds
t 9 ¿
2.2 t4 becauseof financial concerns,and not becauseit is impossibleto do so.
O ø
<¡'l \
15 Thus,in order to mount an as-appliedconstitutionalchallenge,plaintifß must first
k E
-== i 16 provide detailsas to how they would conducttheir trade showsconsistentwith the Ordinance.
t¡t 5
É,ø
< ì T7 Until they do so, the County camot apply the Ordinance to plaintifß, and plaintiffs have no
T z
( J p
^. Z. 18 standingto maintain their "as-applied"free expressionand equalprotectionclaims. Madsen,976
g
7'þ 19 F.Zdat 1220-1222;Jewsfor Jesus,Inc., 2005WL 110969g,p. *6.
2l separateand independentreason.
22
23 B.
24 .
25 If this Court grants summaryjudgment to the County on plaintifß' federal free expression
26 claim, the Court should declineto exerciseany further supplementaljurisdiction over plaintiffs'
27 statelaw free expressionclaim. See UnitedMine Workersv. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715,86 S.Ct. 1130.
28 -r7-
DEFENDANTS'NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FORSUI\4MARYJUDGMENTON PLAINTIFFS'THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT
I 2061\0002\877766.4
I l'6L-Ed-zd218 (1966). Plaintifß have never even allegedwhich provision of the Califomia
4 C.
5 Law.
9 As explained above, the Ordinance does not prohibit speechand,is unrelatedto the suppression
2I the sametime, place or manner analysis set forth above. In analyzinglocal ordinancesunder the
26
6-l\ I974,J!e
27 year afterCrownover,wasdecided,the protectionsof free expressionwere
removed from article I, section 9 and addedto article I, iectiôn 2 (where they remäin) of the
California Constitution.
28 - 18-
DEFENDANTS'NOTICEOF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTON PLAINTIFFS'THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1206t\Q002\877766.4
1 for purposesof analysisunder the Califomia Constitution). Accordingly, the abovetime, place
2 or manner analysiscompelsjudgment for the County under the California Constitution for the
a
J samereasonsit compelsjudgment for the counfy under the First Amendment.
A
a
5 D.
6 Claim. Their Claim Fails As A Matter Of Law.
Plaintiffs have no standing to maintain an as-appliedequal protection claim for the same
9 themselvesto the terms of the Ordinancebasedon the fiction that it is "impossible" for them to
<
.
' T zì
q
T7 such a way that they and other participants in their trade shows are banned from possessing
( J 9
, ' ' . F
18 firearmson County propertywhile participantsin "a motion picture, television,video, dance,or
',,-_þ
T¿9¿. I9 theatricalproductionor event" are exceptedfrom the ban (Ex. A, subd.(f(a)). Indeed,plaintifß
20 have statedthat if their "gun shows" were included within this exception, they would not have
23 unless the group to which plaintifß belong is sÌmilarly situated to the group againstwhich
26 compared." Freeman, 68 F.3d at 1187, citing Attorney General v. Irish People, Inc-, 684F.2d,
28
-19-
DEFENDANTS'NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FoR SUMMARY JUDGMENToN PLAINTIFE'
Tñi6
AMENDEDCOMPLAINT
1206r\0002\877766.4
I Insofar as plaintifß wish to bring firearms on County property as part of their trade
2 shows,they are not similarly situatedto authorizedparticipantsin "a motion picture, television,
J video, danceor theatrical production or event." Plaintiffs allege that their "gun shows" "bring
4 hundreds,if not thousands,of firearms to one location, where examination is both convenient,
5 and educational" (TAC at ti60.9). These firearms are exhibited, displayed, and sold (TAC at
6 1[ 17)- Plaintiffs also admit that attendanceat eachof their shows at the County Fairgroundsis at
a
leastapproximately4,000 people(TAC at fl 45). Plaintifß also allegethat all potentialbuyers
11 the production or event, and not by anyonewho may enter the Fairgroundsto observethe
' ? z
2T Games(TAC at tf 90).
23 every February (Pickering decl. at'llf 9, 12). In February 2004, during the Outdoor and
2 (Pickering decl. at 1T10). Furthermore,a paintbalt rifle is not subject to the Ordinance'sban on
J firearms possessionon County property; the Ord.inancedefines a"frreaffi" as a gun from which
4 is expelled "a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion" (Ex. A,
5 subd. (d)). A paintball rifle doesnot involve expulsion of a projectile by any form of combustion
8 people shooting at paper targetswith air-soft guns, not previously approved for use at the show
2I (Ex. A, subd. (f(a); Pickeringdecl. at 13). The ScottishGamesfall within the broadexception
11
22 in the Ordinance.
^a
¿) Plaintifß are not similarly situatedto the paintball exhibitor, to the four of five people
24 using air-soft guns, or to those re-enactinghistorical gun battles. First, the paintball gun and the
25 air-soft guns do not fall within the definition of "firearm" in the Ordinance becauseneither
27 of historical gun battles are required either to have the guns in their immediate possessionor
28 -2r-
DEFENDANTS'NOTICEOF MOTIONAND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTON PLAINTIFFS'
THIRD
AMENDEDCOMPLAINT
1206t\0002\877766.4
1 otherwise to securethem so unauthorizedpersonswill not use them. It bearsrepeatingthat
if
2 plaintiffs wished to conduct historical re-enactments,they could do so. But presently
as
a
J constituted- with thousandsof individuals being able to handle firearms without oversight
of
4 any act of possession- plaintiffs' gun shows are not similarly situatedto the other shows
7 Furthermore,even if plaintiffs were similarly situatedto the operatorsof the Outdoor and
8 SportsmanShows or the Scottish Games,the County need show only a rational basis for
28
-22-
DEFENDANTS'
NOTICEoF MoTIoN ANDMoTIoN FoR suttarr¿envIuDcMENT oN plnrul¡'r's'86
AMENDED COMPLAINT
t2061\0002\877766.4
1 Here, the County has made the policy choice through its Ordinanceto reducethe risk
of
2 gun violence on its own property: the Ordinance bans the possession
of fireanns on County
a
J property. The County's decision was made in the wake of a shooting on
County property, and
4 after hundredsof homicides committed with guns within the County's borders.
Any legislator
5 would reasonablyconclude that the risk of gun violence is greaterunder the
circumstancesof
6 plaintiffs' "gun shows" than it is under the circumstancesof one of
the exceptedevents. It is
7 therefore reasonableto apply the firearms ban to an event (1) that has no restrictions
on which
8 attendeesmay possessa firearm, and(2) that does not require firearms to
be securedwhen not in
9 someone'simmediatepossession.It also is reasonableto exceptfrom that ban those
events
10 (1) that limit firearmspossessiononlyto participantsin the events,and (2)
that require.the
1l firearms to be securedagainstpossessionby anotherpersonwhen not in the immediate
= = 12 possessionof the original possessor. Thesedifferencesbetweenplaintifß'
(]= "gun shows,,and the
T <
<J1 ?
ur3
f y ¿ 13 exceptedeventshave a fair and substantialrelationship to the Ordinance's legitimate
safety
L 9 ¿
z.? T4 purpose of reducing the risk of gun violence on county property.
O y i
Ø, I
15 Thus, plaintiffs are incorrect that the Equal Protection Clauseis violated becausetheir
Qtr
-== Í T6 "gun shows" are not includedwithin the Ordinance'sexception. "The
<n1 Constitutiondoesnot
ô k
É.ø
< à I7 require that laws treat every individual exactly alike to withstand constitutional
' T z
[] attack.',
( J 9
' a 18 Mlikotinv. cityof LosAngeles,643F.2d,652,653(9,hcir. 19gl). ..Treatingtwogroups
-g
ú{¿ T9 differently does not necessarilyviolate the equal protection
[clause]." California Assn. of the
20 Physically Handicapped,Inc. v. FCC, Tzl F.2¿,667, 670(9,hcir. 19g3). .,[T]he
Equal
2l ProtectionClause. . . doesnot ensureabsoluteequality." Bruce v. ylst,351 F.3d
12g3,l2gg (9th
22 Cir' 2003)- Given the ordinance's statedgoal, the admittedfeaturesand circumstances
of
23 plaintiffs' trade shows, and the circumstancesof the other events
to which plaintiffs compare
24 themselves,it cannotbe said that the County's distinction betweenplaintiffs' trade
showsand the
25 other events is arbitrary or unreasonable.
4 valid state license to possessfirearms on County property, but prohibits all firearms dealers
5 without a valid license(and not subject to other exceptions)from doing so (TAC atl92).
9 section 12050 allows a personto carry a specific weapon,identified,in the license, and concealed
11 section T2050meansonly that those dealerswho have a license caî carrya ftrearmconcealedon
z.= L2 their personson the Fairgrounds,provided it is the firearm identified in the permit, and it is
O =
-< ns?
r v a
rrJ 3
I3 carriedconcealedon the person. Section 12050hasnothing to do with what inventory a dealer
* =
z.= T4 may carry onto the Fairgrounds.
O :1t'
c ô *
15 Furthermore, the exception has nothing to do with firearms dealersat all; it doesnot even
k E
-== i 16 mention dealers. It simply exemptsfrom the possessionban anyperson (whether a dealeror not)
<ns
Õ k
ú,ø
< àz
-a-
T7 holding a permit under a California statuteauthorizing the carrying of a concealedweapon.
( J 9
18 Even worse for plaintiffs, "'[a] facial challengeto a legislativeact is, of course,the most
:g
V¿V¿ t9 difficult challenge to mount successfully,since the challengermust establishthat no set of
22 with the daunting task of showing that under no set of circumstanceswould it be valid to allow
23 one person holding a valid licenseunder California Penal Code section 12050 to carrya firearm
24 on County property, and at the sametime prohibit anotherperson without such a license from
25 carrying a ftteartn on County property. Plaintiffs cannot meet this heaw burden.
26
27 8 Statutory references
- hereinafterare to the California Penal Code unless otherwise
noted.
28 _24_
DEFENDANTS'NOTICEOF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ruDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS' THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT
12061\0002\877766.4
I Under section 12050,a personmust (1) establishgood causefor issuanceof a licenseto
2 cafiy a firearm, and (2) complete a training course on the safety and use of a f,rrearmbefore
a
J receivinga licenseto carrya firearm (Section 12050,subds.(a)(f
)(e) & (E)). Even worse, some
4 people who do not have licensesto carrymay have applied for and beendenied licenses
because
5 they have been convicted of a felony (Section l2050,subd. (d); section lZ02L). Given the
6 Counfy's important interest in reducing gun violence, the County may reasonablyallow a person
- with a license (i.e. one who has taken a training course)to carrya concealedfirearm on County
8 property, and to prohibit a personwithout a license (i.e. one who has not taken atraíningcourse
l0 Accordingly, plaintifß cannot show that the exception for licenseesis invalid under all
11 circumstances.
z-= T2 For all of the abovereasons,the City is entitledto judgment as a matterof law on
o ;
- s
Ø ¡ P
r v a
r ! 3
13 plaintifß' equal protection claim.
t 9 ¿
2 . 9
I4
O r1l'
L N \
i5
k E
-== Í L6
<¡t a IV. CONCLUSION
Õ k
M , ø
< àZ l7 For all of the foregoingreasons,the Countyis entitledto judgmentasa matterof law on
"I-
( J 9
.4',a Q 18 plaintifß' Third AmendedComplaint,andthe Courtshouldgrantthe County'smotionfor
.lz
'e{¿.
T9 summaryjudgment.
20 DATED: June2,2006 RICHARD E. WINME
COTINTYCOTINSEL
2l COT]NTYOF AIAMEDA
22 zuCHARDS,V/ATSON& GERSHON
23
T.P
24
25
CE
26 Attomeys for Defendants
MARY V. KING, ET AL.
27
28
-25-
DEFENDANTS'
NOTICEOFMOTIONANDMoTIoN FoR SUMMARYruDGMENToN PLATNTIFETHÏRF
AMENDED COMPLAINT
12061\0002\877766.4
i,.,-)
{}
1 DECLARATION OF RICK K. PICKERING
9 2. I have personalknowledge of the mattersset forth below and could and would
< n ?
r v a
¡.rJ 3
13 they would conduct their trade shows at the Fairgrounds in compliance with the Alameda County
t 9 ¿
2.9 L4 Ordinance ("Ordinance") which bans the possessionof firearms on the Fairgroundsand on other
(O/ ) *tri
15 County property. A true and correct copy of my letter is attached.hereas Exhibit "8."
ä Y
_= = Í L6 4.
<¡t a In responseto that inquiry, I receiveda letter datedSeptember16, 1999from Mr.
Õ k
É
< Zà
. q
T7 Donald Kilmer, the Nordyke's lawyer. A true and correct copy of Mr. Kilmer's letter is attached
T
( J 9
; ' ' . ç 18 as Exhibit "C." Ill that letter,Mr. Kilmer assertsit would "not be practicalor profitable" for the
'Þ.$,
VzVa. 19 Nordykes to conduct a "gun show" under the Ordinance.
2T lawyer. In that letter (attachedhere as Exhibit "D") Mr. Kilmer statedhe could not find any
22 languagein the Ordinance"that requires [the Nordykes] to submit a written plan such as the one
¿J you requested."
25 demonstratedhow they would comply with the Ordinance,the County Fair Associationcould not
26 reservespacefor their trade shows. A true and correct copy of my letter to the Nordykes is
28 -26-
DEFENDANTS'NOTICEOF MOTIONAND MOTION FORSUMMARY JTIDGMENTON PLAINTIFFS'THIRD
AMENDEDCOMPLATNT
1206r\0002\877766.4
1 7. To date,the Nordykes have never made any attempt to conduct their trade shows
2 atthe Fairgroundsin compliancewith the Ordinancenor have they provided to me a written plan
a
J for conducting their shows at the Fairgroundsconsistentwith the Ordinance.
6 display- Some were lying on display tables such that people were picking them up and handling
them and inspecting them at will. Some firearms had cables through the trigger guardsin order
8 to prevent removal. However, many firearms did not have cables,or any other device, that
t1 defined in the Ordinance are allowed attheFairgrounds notwithstanding the ban on possessionof
z.= T2 firearms on the Fairgrounds. Basedon my personal experienceas a gun owner and NRA
O =
cr1 P
r v æ
u r 3
13 instructor, and basedon my work as GeneralManager of the Fairgrounds,I am not aware that
" = I4 any firearms subject to the ban, and not within an exception to the ban, have been allowed on the
z,?
ofr
cr¡ E
15 Fairgrounds.
k E
-=È i L6 10. ln February2004,I observedat the Fairgroundsan exhibitor erectinga display
< n A
ots
É.ø
< t 1.7 advertising a future paintball event at anothervenue. The display included a mannequinwith
T z
t_r 9
'a 18 gogglesand camouflage gear,holding a paintball rifle strappedin his hand. The County Fair
i
'*Jg
V¿9¿ r9 Associationhad not given previouspermissionfor the display. The paintball rifle was not
20 connectedto any air supply and was not attachedto a paintball cannister. A paintball'rifle is
2t poweredby compressedair and doesnot expel a projectile (the paint ball) by combustion. Under
22 thesecircumstances,it was my understandingthat the Ordinance did not prohibit the paintball
24 Counfy Sheriffs Departmentand askedwhether the rifle was prohibited under the Ordinance. I
25 was told by Lieutenant JamesKnudsenthat the paintball rifle was not prohibited under the
26 Ordinance.
5 circumstances,it was my understandingthat the Ord,inancedid not prohibit those air-soft guns. I
thoseair-soft guns were prohibited under the Ordinance. Lieutenant JamesKnudsen conf,rrmed
10 guns I observedwere not expelled by combustion, thoseitems are not consideredfirearms and
11 arepermitted under the Ordinancewhile the firearms of the type displayed and marketedby the
z = t2 Nordykes at their trade shows are prohibited. I have never observedon the Cognty Fairgrounds
O =
- <
!r-) P
r y ã
rr3
13 during the Outdoor and SportsmanShows a firearm capableof expelling a projectile through the
L 9 ¿
2.2 1,4 force of combustion.
Ori
L n *
15 13. After my appointmentas CEO of the County Fair Associationand General
k E
_= = i L6 Manager of the Fairgrounds,I have observedthe Scottish Gamesat the County Fairgroundson
tna
o k
É.ø
< à I7 severaloccasions.I have seenas part of the ScottishGameshistorical re-enactments
of gun
T Z
( J 9
i A 18 battlesthat occurredfrom the 1600sto the 1900s. A public addressannouncersetsthe scenefor
i ,
-(Z
æ{. t9 the audienceby describing the particular battle being re-enactedand the period in history during
20 which the battle occurred. As part of enforcingthe Ordinance,it is requiredthat only those
22 rifles. Also, those rifles are required to be unloaded or loaded with blank cartridges. No
aa
ZJ ammunition is allowed and to my knowledge no live ammunition has ever been used during the
26 I declareunder penaltyof perjury under the laws of the United Statesof America that the
28 -28-
DEFENDANTS'NOTICEOF MOTIONAND MOTIONFORSTMMARY JUDGMENTON PLAINTIFFS'THIRD
AMENDEDCOMPLAINT
t206r\0002\877766.4
I Executed
or Muchfi.. 2006.
2
3
4
5
6
;l
;l
"f,
FËí/
gË
æ
;t " ü
íf
,4
,:J oo*
-2 -<)-
t2or¡tvo(t2,qr771662 ¿ucnomooræunn-
. - l
¡. "t
\,.
,-i
,res-%*q-r
I DECLARATION OF T. PETER PIERCE
2 I, T. PeterPierce,declare:
4 Court, and I am the attorney primarily responsible for representingdefendantsin this action. I
6 2. Attached here as Exhibit "F" is a true and correct copy of a document I printed
9 from a websiteshowing the number of gun, knife and hunting showsin Californiain2003,2004
10 and 2005.
11 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United Statesof America that the
z = T2 foregoing is true and correct.
O =
- Í
t n ?
rv ã. IJ Executedon June2-2006.
U J 3
e =
z.= t4
O #
<t) =
15
k x
-== i 16
un=
o k
É.ø t7
<zñ
-
( J 9
îtrt 18
.u
ñ9¿. 19
20
2L
22
aa
¿J
24
25
26
27
28 ' -30-
ON PLAINTIFFS' THIRD
DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JTJDGMENT
AMENDED COMPLAINT
t 206I \0002\877766.4
ñn õ¡.J Ll-
Fax:714-9962J0
Sep 28 '99 î2:16 ?.n
11
T'NTTED STATES DISTRICT EOURT
L2
FOR TT{E ¡TORTHERN DISTRTCT
OF CÀI,IFORNIÀ
13
sAI{ .fosE DMSrot{
14
RUSSELL ÀLLnr NORDYKE
t5 and SÀtTJTE Case No- C-99-2094?-Eä[
ANN NORDYKE, dbA tS'INEOÈ fc)
sHows.
16 Honorable Edward A. Infante.
Plaintiffs, Chíef Magistrace Judge
L7 vs-
DECLARA'TION OF SERGEANT
1B v: KrNc. cArt STEELE¿T,III,MA JAMES KN{.'DSEN IN SUPPORT OF
ï15-I
CHAN. KEITH CARSON, SCOTT' DEFENDÀNTS' MEMORÀNDUM OF
l q
THE COUN:rYoF er,euÈne, ãrroHAGGERTY, POTNTS AI{D AUTHORITTES .TN
coumty oF ar.eMEDABoARDöF lHE OPPOSITTON TO PT¿ATNTTFFS' EX
20 SUPERVISORS, PARTE MOTION FOR å. TEMPOR.ARY
RESTRÀTNING ORDER
2L Defendant.g. Hearing Date: None Set
22
5{85{
tûfitb tf, Fax:214-99062J0
sep 28 i99 12:t6 P.30
11
rax:t14-:ffi230
Sep 28 -j99 12:78 P-32
:
6
7
1('
11
L2
13
1lt
15
. 1 6
L7
18
19
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
2'r
28
fl¡c¡¡raoc.
' $l^Tuqt{a
OGlRan{oó{
ffiaf4
-{-
lll{a5(
34