Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 251 to 271 of 271

Thread: Status of California Open Carry Lawsuit - Charles Nichols v. Edmund Brown, Jr., et al

  1. #251
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    Why? Because you say so?
    So, now that it is on the record that Charlie filed his appeal as a pauper to avoid payment of the fees and then went on to raise money for that same appeal with a GoFundMe campaign, do you still believe it is not sleazy conduct?

    Didn't George Zimmerman, in the Trayvon Martin case, get in hot water for generally similar conduct?

  2. #252
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    130

    Thundar to crickets

    How do you reduce the booming sound of Thundar to the quiet hush of crickets?

    Let Charlie make an oral argument
    Last edited by cocked&locked; 02-16-2018 at 02:51 PM.

  3. #253
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    130

    gutshot II

    What happens when Charlie makes an oral argument?

    You feel like you have been gutshot II.

  4. #254
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    130

    No Oc4me

    What happens when Charlie makes an oral argument?

    There is no OC4me in California.
    Last edited by cocked&locked; 02-16-2018 at 02:55 PM.

  5. #255
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,731
    After two years are we suppose to start praying for a miracle?

  6. #256
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    After two years are we suppose to start praying for a miracle?
    Maybe Charlie will request, be granted, and win an en banc oral argument. LOL

  7. #257
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,934
    Quote Originally Posted by cocked&locked View Post
    How do you reduce the booming sound of Thundar to the quiet hush of crickets?

    Let Charlie make an oral argument
    Do you mean the oral argument that you claimed would never happen? I have not made any comments lately becaue I have discovered the ignore function. It is rather nice to not be disturbed by pejorative sophmorsh claptrapp.

    Btw pocked and mocked you should wait for the decision to conduct the post mortem.The crow meal from your last prognostication must have been very bitter indeed....presuming you place any importance on your credibility gap.

    Live Free or Die,
    Thundar
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  8. #258
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    Do you mean the oral argument that you claimed would never happen? I have not made any comments lately becaue I have discovered the ignore function. It is rather nice to not be disturbed by pejorative sophmorsh claptrapp.

    Btw pocked and mocked you should wait for the decision to conduct the post mortem.The crow meal from your last prognostication must have been very bitter indeed....presuming you place any importance on your credibility gap.

    Live Free or Die,
    Thundar
    You have some nerve calling that crap that stammered out of his mouth an oral argument. Pray tell exactly what point he made.

    He may have gotten an oral argument but he sure as hell did not make one.
    Last edited by cocked&locked; 02-28-2018 at 05:25 PM.

  9. #259
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,934

    C&L, stop foaming at the mouth and think

    Quote Originally Posted by cocked&locked View Post
    You have some nerve calling that crap that stammered out of his mouth an oral argument. Pray tell exactly what point he made.

    He may have gotten an oral argument but he sure as hell did not make one.
    Before gloating over Charles lack of lawyerly skills, step back and ask: What will a decision (even one we don’t like) actually bring to gun rights?

    What is at stake here is whether the right to bear arms openly is a broad right which can be regulated but not denied to law abiding citizens (shall issue) or a narrow one that can be regulated into virtual non-existence. The important difference in Charles case is that his case did not rely upon any concealed carry arguments. Charles may have not been perfect or even good by Barrister standards, but he did an adequate job of challenging the utility and close fit of California’s Imminent Danger Standard. Even if Charles loses on all fronts, there will be an obvious split between the 9th and other Circuits over the shall issue vs. may issue (imminent danger) standard which cannot now be dismissed by SCOTUS as simply a concealed carry privledge. I am not saying Charles is going to SCOTUS, what I am saying is that this case MAY provide the sort of split that is attractive to cert being granted by SCOTUS. Remember the 9th Circuit already ruled that there is NO Right to carry concealed.

    Wait and see what the decision brings C&L, you view this from a tactical lawyerly point of view. Maybe this will be bad at the strategic level, but more likely this will be an opportunity for the now more gun friendly SCOTUS to spank the 9th Circuit. Not saying that this is THE Bear Arms case, but it is the sort of opportunity that is needed to break through the concealed carry swamp that continues to destroy our ability to even get a bear arms case heard.

    Live Free or Die,
    Thundar
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  10. #260
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    Before gloating over Charles lack of lawyerly skills, step back and ask: What will a decision (even one we don’t like) actually bring to gun rights?

    What is at stake here is whether the right to bear arms openly is a broad right which can be regulated but not denied to law abiding citizens (shall issue) or a narrow one that can be regulated into virtual non-existence. The important difference in Charles case is that his case did not rely upon any concealed carry arguments. Charles may have not been perfect or even good by Barrister standards, but he did an adequate job of challenging the utility and close fit of California’s Imminent Danger Standard. Even if Charles loses on all fronts, there will be an obvious split between the 9th and other Circuits over the shall issue vs. may issue (imminent danger) standard which cannot now be dismissed by SCOTUS as simply a concealed carry privledge. I am not saying Charles is going to SCOTUS, what I am saying is that this case MAY provide the sort of split that is attractive to cert being granted by SCOTUS. Remember the 9th Circuit already ruled that there is NO Right to carry concealed.

    Wait and see what the decision brings C&L, you view this from a tactical lawyerly point of view. Maybe this will be bad at the strategic level, but more likely this will be an opportunity for the now more gun friendly SCOTUS to spank the 9th Circuit. Not saying that this is THE Bear Arms case, but it is the sort of opportunity that is needed to break through the concealed carry swamp that continues to destroy our ability to even get a bear arms case heard.

    Live Free or Die,
    Thundar
    Point # 1:

    I have always reviewed this case from a ‘tactical lawyer’ point of view. My entire beef with Charlie originated with his unrelenting and unfair criticism of lawyers in general and Gura specifically, and his claim that he possessed better skills than them. So, if you look at my post, they all center on Charlie’s complete lack of lawyering skills and tactics.

    Now that both his paperwork and oral argument are a matter of public record I no longer have to wait for a decision in the case to come to the conclusion that Charlie’s lawyering skills are nonexistent. He was a complete bust on both skill and strategy. And even you have finally had to acknowledge this. It is a pity that it took you 2 years.

    Point # 2:

    Even putting aside his lack of skill and strategy, Charlie’s case is a sure loser because his premise is legally incorrect. There is not a right to open carry enshrined in the Constitution and Scalia did not say that open carry is a constitutionally protected right, as Charlie continuously claims. As things stand right now, there is no holding in any SCOTUS case providing for the right to carry outside the home (in any form). So, the bottom line is that Charlie’s claim has no legal support. When you then factor in that Charlie is attempting to do this in California it is not difficult to come to the conclusion that his case is a sure loser.

    Charlie’s attack on the ‘imminent danger’ standard illustrates just how stupid his case is. “Imminent danger” actually provides one more basis for a person to claim a right to carry. By eliminating ‘imminent danger’ you are actually narrowing carry rights, not expanding them.

    Finally, SCOTUS will never touch this case. Anyone that entertains this thought is delusional. Gun rights expansion is never going to come out of California. The Ca. courts are too intellectually dishonest. Gun rights expansion is going to have to flow into California from outside. The easiest and fastest way right now is thru national reciprocity.

  11. #261
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,934
    Quote Originally Posted by cocked&locked View Post
    Point # 1:

    I have always reviewed this case from a ‘tactical lawyer’ point of view. My entire beef with Charlie originated with his unrelenting and unfair criticism of lawyers in general and Gura specifically, and his claim that he possessed better skills than them. So, if you look at my post, they all center on Charlie’s complete lack of lawyering skills and tactics.

    Now that both his paperwork and oral argument are a matter of public record I no longer have to wait for a decision in the case to come to the conclusion that Charlie’s lawyering skills are nonexistent. He was a complete bust on both skill and strategy. And even you have finally had to acknowledge this. It is a pity that it took you 2 years.

    Point # 2:

    Even putting aside his lack of skill and strategy, Charlie’s case is a sure loser because his premise is legally incorrect. There is not a right to open carry enshrined in the Constitution and Scalia did not say that open carry is a constitutionally protected right, as Charlie continuously claims. As things stand right now, there is no holding in any SCOTUS case providing for the right to carry outside the home (in any form). So, the bottom line is that Charlie’s claim has no legal support. When you then factor in that Charlie is attempting to do this in California it is not difficult to come to the conclusion that his case is a sure loser.

    Charlie’s attack on the ‘imminent danger’ standard illustrates just how stupid his case is. “Imminent danger” actually provides one more basis for a person to claim a right to carry. By eliminating ‘imminent danger’ you are actually narrowing carry rights, not expanding them.

    Finally, SCOTUS will never touch this case. Anyone that entertains this thought is delusional. Gun rights expansion is never going to come out of California. The Ca. courts are too intellectually dishonest. Gun rights expansion is going to have to flow into California from outside. The easiest and fastest way right now is thru national reciprocity.
    “We find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” DC v. Heller, 554 us. 570, 592, 171 L. Ed 2d 637, 129 S. Ct. 2783 (2008)

    It is Incase of confrontation, not in case you have already been confronted (imminent danger)
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  12. #262
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,731
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    “We find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” DC v. Heller, 554 us. 570, 592, 171 L. Ed 2d 637, 129 S. Ct. 2783 (2008)

    It is Incase of confrontation, not in case you have already been confronted (imminent danger)
    How many times do I have to post this?

    The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution.

    This was clarified and confirmed in 2008, when the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.

    The Heller court said: "we find." A finding is a holding, it's mandated. The court did NOT say we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation IN YOUR HOME.

    More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed,’” id. The Court reiterated at page 613, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

    Now that the USSC has declared the Second Amendment applies to the states (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S._742), they too can’t regulate the keeping and bearing of arms in case of confrontation.

    Additionally, the Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. ____ (2016) has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.” In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.”

    At the extreme, since some states regulate concealed carry as a privilege that leaves open carry untouchable.

  13. #263
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    How many times do I have to post this?

    The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution.

    This was clarified and confirmed in 2008, when the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.

    The Heller court said: "we find." A finding is a holding, it's mandated. The court did NOT say we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation IN YOUR HOME.

    More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed,’” id. The Court reiterated at page 613, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

    Now that the USSC has declared the Second Amendment applies to the states (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S._742), they too can’t regulate the keeping and bearing of arms in case of confrontation.

    Additionally, the Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. ____ (2016) has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.” In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.”

    At the extreme, since some states regulate concealed carry as a privilege that leaves open carry untouchable.
    Good info, thanks !

  14. #264
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,935
    Quote Originally Posted by cocked&locked View Post
    ... Gun rights expansion is going to have to flow into California from outside. The easiest and fastest way right now is thru national reciprocity.
    National reciprocity is based on (in most states) the PRIVILEGE of concealed carry, not the RIGHT to do so.

  15. #265
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,553
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    National reciprocity is based on (in most states) the PRIVILEGE of concealed carry, not the RIGHT to do so.
    Horse hockey. Absent mention of specific mode of carry our Second Amendment's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to all modes of carry. The tired, old argument that "no once concealed back then" is hogwash. Of course they did. Anyone with a pistol and a long coat couldn't help but CC.

    Those who rely on Google, for God forbid, Huffington Post, to tell them what our Founding Fathers intended, are sublime fools.

    Fortunately, our Founding Fathers wrote many paragraphs detailing precisely what they meant. Much of their commentary was collected in the 1982 Congressional Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Good read.
    It is to one's honor to avoid strife, but every fool is quick to quarrel (Pro 20:3) // Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels (2 Tim 2:23) // An angry person stirs up conflict, and a hot-tempered person commits many sins (Pro 29:22) // I came here to build Pro-2A consensus to help our country, not trade insults like a fifth-grader. If you're on ignore, well, now you know why.

  16. #266
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,553
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    How many times do I have to post this?
    Often, I hope! I only saw it for the first time a couple of days ago. I've been using it elsewhere with reckless abandon. You do good work - thanks!
    It is to one's honor to avoid strife, but every fool is quick to quarrel (Pro 20:3) // Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels (2 Tim 2:23) // An angry person stirs up conflict, and a hot-tempered person commits many sins (Pro 29:22) // I came here to build Pro-2A consensus to help our country, not trade insults like a fifth-grader. If you're on ignore, well, now you know why.

  17. #267
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,731
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Often, I hope! I only saw it for the first time a couple of days ago. I've been using it elsewhere with reckless abandon. You do good work - thanks!
    Here, I added to it. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S.137 (1803) is one of the most important cases. Have a look....
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...=1#post2230476

  18. #268
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,935
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Horse hockey. Absent mention of specific mode of carry our Second Amendment's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to all modes of carry. The tired, old argument that "no once concealed back then" is hogwash. Of course they did. Anyone with a pistol and a long coat couldn't help but CC.

    Those who rely on Google, for God forbid, Huffington Post, to tell them what our Founding Fathers intended, are sublime fools.

    Fortunately, our Founding Fathers wrote many paragraphs detailing precisely what they meant. Much of their commentary was collected in the 1982 Congressional Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Good read.
    Even though you and I agree on the meaning of the Second Amendment, I was accurately stating the current state of jurisprudence as well as the bill's content.
    Last edited by BB62; 04-11-2018 at 01:45 PM.

  19. #269
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,338
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    ...I was accurately stating the current state of jurisprudence as well as the bill's content.
    That's how I saw it as well.

    National Reciprocity, ipso facto, recognizes licensed privileges, and ignores the rights.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  20. #270
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,186
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    That's how I saw it as well.

    National Reciprocity, ipso facto, recognizes licensed privileges, and ignores the rights.
    ignorance is bliss in the gun community. "muh guns" but they don't research or understand historical context of anything. okay, not everyone, but the majority of american citizens, including gun owners and "gun nuts" are ignorant and rely solely on emotion for arguments.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  21. #271
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,731
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    That's how I saw it as well.

    National Reciprocity, ipso facto, recognizes licensed privileges, and ignores the rights.
    This is how sick congress is when it comes to the 2A. Look at 16 USC 1a-1b.
    (a) Congressional findings:
    Congress finds the following:
    (1) The 2d amendment to the Constitution provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

    (2) Section 27.42 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that, except in special circumstances, citizens of the United States may not “possess, use, or transport firearms on national wildlife refuges” of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
    (3) The regulations described in paragraph (2) prevent individuals complying with Federal and State laws from exercising the 2d amendment rights of the individuals while at units of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
    (4) The existence of different laws relating to the transportation and possession of firearms at different units of the National Wildlife Refuge System entrapped law-abiding gun owners while at units of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
    (5) Although the Bush administration issued new regulations relating to the 2d amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in units of the National Wildlife Refuge System that went into effect on January 9, 2009—
    (A) on March 19, 2009, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction with respect to the implementation and enforcement of the new regulations; and
    (B) the new regulations—
    (i) are under review by the Obama administration; and
    (ii) may be altered.
    (6) Congress needs to weigh in on the new regulations to ensure that unelected bureaucrats and judges cannot again override the 2d amendment rights of law-abiding citizens on 90,790,000 acres of land under the jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
    (7) Federal laws should make it clear that the 2d amendment rights of an individual at a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System should not be infringed.
    (b) Protection of right of individuals to bear arms in units of the National Wildlife Refuge System:
    The Secretary shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm, including an assembled or functional firearm, in any unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System if—
    (1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and
    (2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.
    So, out of one side of congresses mouth they find that "'The 2d amendment to the Constitution provides that ‘‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'’’.

    Then, out of the other side of their mouth say only if "the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System is located."

    When it comes to firearms, is congress saying they now recognize the 10th. Amendment?

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •