Gun shows are much demonized throughout the nation, generally by people who have never darkened the door to one. In their minds, it's just a public place for back-alley gun deals, where firearms flow like water and nary a background check to be had.

That's not remotely the case and we all know this.

But that didn't stop California from banning gun shows on state property. 

Now, if a private party says they won't rent to gun shows, that's their right. The state, however, takes in tax revenue to fund these properties from everyone. That means they should be open to the public for the public to use, not start dictating that perfectly lawful actions have no place in them.

Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit disagrees with me.

Which is why the Second Amendment Foundation is asking the Supreme Court for action.

From a press release:

Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in parallel cases challenging California’s ban on gun shows held on public property have filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court asking that a Ninth Circuit Court mandate be recalled, and a stay be issued pending an appeal to the high court later this year.

The cases involve two sets of plaintiffs. A legal action in the Southern District in San Diego involves SAF, B&L Productions/Crossroads of the West, Barry Bardack, Ronald J. Diaz, Sr., John Dupree, Christopher Irick, Robert Solis, Lawrence Michael Walsh, Captain Jon’s Lockers, L.A.X. Firing Range/LAX Ammo, California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), and South Bay Rod and Gun Club. 

In the Central California case, SAF is joined by B&L Productions/Crossroads of the West, Gerald Clark, Eric Johnson, Chad Littrell, Jan Steven Merson, CRPA, the Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association and the Second Amendment Law Center. They are represented by attorneys C.D. Michel, Anna M. Barvir and Tiffany D. Cheuvront at Michel & Associates in Long Beach, and Donald Kilmer at Kilmer Law Offices in Caldwell, Idaho.

The emergency application was submitted to Associate Justice Elena Kagan. The goal is to have an order by the Ninth Circuit’s three-judge panel allowing the gun show ban to be enforced to be recalled, and in its place to have a stay granted, pending a request for certiorari to the high court.

“The state already agreed to a stay,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “but the Ninth Circuit panel issued its order anyway. This case involves serious First and Second Amendment issues.”

The petition notes, “The business model of gun shows is a case study in exercising rights under the First and Second Amendments, and the operative complaint contains ample, legally sufficient allegations of California’s animus toward Applicants and their activities…The Ninth Circuit’s refusal to even address Applicants’ animus claim is inconsistent with this Court’s precedents and warrants certiorari.”

“We would very much like this case to move forward with as little drama as possible,” Gottlieb said, “but the Ninth Circuit’s actions are making that difficult.”

Yes, that's right. The state of California agreed to a stay on the order. They were prepared to put a hold on enforcing the rule as the case worked its way through the judicial system.

And the Ninth Circuit went, "Nah."

That's insane.

If both sides are in favor of a stay, then it should be an automatic. Instead, the Ninth Circuit has decided to ignore what both sides want and just do what they want instead. Absolutely insane.

So yeah, of course the SAF is looking for a stay. It shouldn't be difficult to get one, but since they're asking for it from Justice Kagan, it probably will be.

The truth of the matter is that the ban accomplishes nothing except permitting state anti-gun lawmakers to pretend they've done something. It doesn't stop the illegal gun trade in California, because that's not what happens at gun shows. It's not even stopping gun shows. It just restricts where they can be held and makes it more expensive to hold one.

That's it. That's this amazing gift that California taxpayers are seeing their tax dollars wasted to defend, but at least the state was intelligent enough--and no, I don't believe I'm saying this about California--to recognize the wisdom of a stay for the time being.

Only the Ninth Circuit decided differently and wrongly.

The only option is the Supreme Court, and my hope is that even Kagan recognizes that this is probably something that should be held in check for the time being.

We'll have to see, though.