Nordyke v. King was issued Monday in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Background: Appellant Nordyke operated gun shows on Alameda County grouds (I think fairgrounds) until 1999 when Alameda County prohibited guns on all its properties. They sued, unsuccessfully, under equal protection claims (there are exceptions for battle re-enactments where the guns fire blanks) and second amendment grounds. Their suit was never upheld because the Nutty Ninth always held the second amendment to be a collective right (whatever the hell that is) instead of an individual one. When District of Columbia v. Heller was handed down by the Supreme Court last year, they amended their complaint and tried again.

While the case was decided against Nordyke and they were denied the chance to hold their gun shows on Alameda County property (a decision which has its own faults), the opinion is significant for the fact that this is the first opinion (of which I'm aware) that holds the second amendment applicable to the States via the Incorporation Doctrine. They stated there's no reason to treat the second amendment any differently from any of the others.

This display of clear logic and rational thought is surprising for the Ninth Circuit, and what makes the opinion even more astonishing is little footnote 18, which reads:
The County and its amici point out that, however universal its earlier support, the right to keep and bear arms has now become controversial. See generally Sanford Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L.J. 637 (1989). But we do not measure the protection the Constitution affords a right by the values of our own times. If contemporary desuetude sufficed to read rights out of the Constitution, then there would be little benefit to a written statement of them. Some may disagree with the decision of the Founders to enshrine a given right in the Constitution. If so, then the people can amend the document. But such amendments are not for the courts to ordain.
In what appears to be a part of the official opinion, as opposed to dicta, this one footnote has foreclosed the notion of a "living Constitution." At least, one could read it that way and hope for the best. I'm skeptical, but not pessimistic.

I need to find out more about this Judge O'Scannlain, the author of the majority opinion. Hizzonor seems to have at least half a foot grounded in common sense and reason.