Guns And The Law: Alameda County Judicial Hearing

THIS IS QUITE LONG ... the arguments exceed an hour ... but I have found it fascinating to observe the process by which a lone lawyer (yech!) argued for the establishment of a "gun store" in Alameda County, California.

(Hat Tip: Arms And The Law)

Considering how the State of California has been so entirely anti-gun in recent years, it's refreshing to watch a young lawyer argue his client's case against a panel of judges who are obviously 'dubious' of the merits of his case.

The question is whether a 'new' gun store in Alameda County, California (eg: OAKLAND)  may remain open even though it has been established within X-number of feet of an existing commercial establishment which is also licensed to sell firearms.    Alameda county law prohibits establishment of a store which sells firearms, within X-number of feet of another such establishment.   The 'new' store is within a handful-of yards of the 'old' store; the question is whether that stand-off distance serves any useful purpose, and whether two stores which provide similar product cannot provide different services and be a benefit to the citizens of the county.

More important .. is that 'stand-off' distance' meaningful, or is it arbitrary?   If it is arbitrary, why can that distance be 400 feet instead of 500 feet, and why does the law not take into account the cultural differences between the two retail businesses?

The point made by the defense is that (a) the 'distance' is arbitrary and provides no benefit to the county other than limiting the number of resources for citizens who wish to purchase a firearm in Alameda county; and (b) the 'new' store provides many valuable benefits which had not previously been available to local citizens, not the least being training and instruction on safety, firearms laws, etc.
\
It's a rare treat to watch two teams of bright, dedicated proponents present their point of view.  And it's fun to watch the various judges doze off during the presenting of the opposing arguments.

I won't tell you how the story ends.

The following link has been tested, and it works for me:

Watch recording for John Teixeira v. County of Alameda, No. 13-17132

Federal Judge Opines ... open & concealed carry not justifiable

GUN WATCH: Judge Claims to Support Second Amendment, Just not the "Bear" part: open and concealed carry laws were a danger to any community.

"I think open carry (and concealed-carry) laws, with all due deference to the Second Amendment, which I support...are dangerous to any community because of the epidemic of mental health issues throughout this country," he said. "Putting guns in the hands of mentally incompetent people is a recipe for disaster."

Well ... yes.   The insanity clause seems reasonable.  But who decides who is insane?
What criteria is codified to determine insanity?

To most Liberals, anyone who thinks he/she needs a gun is ipso facto insane,

That's Crazy Talk!