MEMO FROM DON B. KATES: NORDYKE’S SECOND AMENDMENT THEORY.

Government Property/”Sensitive Places” The court upheld the ordinance banning gun possession on county property on two intellectually vulnerable theories: any area where there are a lot of people is a “sensitive place” which Heller says is an exception to Second Amendment rights; and government has virtual carte blanche as to restricting guns on its own property. Logically, these theories do not hold water. Nordyke erroneously accepts the county’s bald claim that the fair grounds is a sensitive place even though the ordinance itself does not so classify the fair grounds; and despite state law which expressly provides that guns may be present at a gun show. More broadly, the idea that any area where there are a lot of people is a “sensitive place” is highly dubious. A more persuasive view is that sensitive places are only things like jails, prisons and psychiatric facilities. Logically, any suggestion that areas where there are a lot of people are ipso facto “sensitive places” runs right up against the Second Amendment’s phraseology “keep and bear.” What is the point of a right to bear arms for self defense if any place with people is a sensitive place where you have no right to bear? The most reasonable explanations for this error are: (a) the Nordyke court was seeking to armor its premier conclusion%