NRA and open carry

[sudden valley gunner]

Oh, hell. Let's just start an organization that covers the whole country: For Unlicensed Carry IN America, FUCINA.

Hahaha! Love it!

 

[California Right To Carry]

Not sure where to post this ,but I would like to know if the NRA is helping in the fight agianst the open carry restrictions in california.

Not only is the NRA not helping in the fight against the Open Carry bans, the NRA/CRPA championed the 1967 Loaded Open Carry ban in its Peruta v. San Diego lawsuit and supported California's Gun Free School Zone Act as well. According to the NRA/CRPA in its opening brief, if the court doesn't give them their concealed carry permits then it will result in the overturning of the Loaded Open Carry ban (the unloaded open carry bans had not yet been enacted with their brief was filed) and it will result in the overturning of California's Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995. The NRA/CRPA told the court that would be "Drastic."

The NRA/CRPA also filed an Amicus Brief in the appeal of the denial of my preliminary injunction asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to stay my appeal. Both the Attorney General and I opposed the stay. The motion was initially referred to the merit's panel but an assistant clerk took it upon herself to stay my appeal pending a decision in the three concealed carry cases which have already been submitted for a decision.

So the short answer is "No!" the NRA is not helping. The NRA, CRPA, SAF, CalGuns, GOA, GOC and other so called gun-rights groups you may never have heard of all oppose Open Carry.

For the current status of my Open Carry lawsuit against all three California Open Carry bans (loaded and unloaded) click here.

 

[eye95]

You provided convincing support that the NRA is not helping OC in CA. What about those other national groups you mentioned? Can you support the claim against them?

 

[Augustin]

NRA = sell outs.

Amen. The NRA has supported almost every major piece of gun control INCLUDING the 1968 GCA.

From the website "NRA WOL - A Case Study of the NRA's Disastrous Compromises

http://www.nrawol.net/

"Certainly since 1968 -- and possibly since 1934 -- Americans' gun rights have been in drastic decline. That decline has been created, and studiously maintained, by the failed and disastrous strategies of the National Rifle Association.

The NRA has been synonymous with the shooting sports in America, but has now become as much a gun control organization as a gun rights group. Though the 1994 passage of the Brady Act opened NRA members' eyes to this fact, there are literally hundreds of earlier examples where the NRA has stood against gun rights -- and for the "establishment."

The NRA's main motivation is being friends with those "shakers and movers" in the Beltway. One activist made this analogy: "The NRA desperately wants a seat at the table, even though the host feeds them dog food and makes fun of them in front of the other guests."

Most NRA members believe the NRA represents their members by urging politicians to move toward freedom. Instead, the NRA is given orders by politicians, which the NRA must then sell to its members. In other words, the NRA no longer represents its members but actively represents politicians.

If you want to delve into the NRA's misdeeds with honesty and an open mind, read on. If you are an NRA hack, who thinks the three letters mean no wrong can be done, you don't deserve the freedom we aim to protect."

NRAwol's Mission Statement reads,

"NRAwol was created as a clearing house for information on the NRA, only from a pro-gun point of view. If we can expose the NRA’s compromises on a daily basis, and compile them all right here, the NRA may have to re-think their terrible political strategy.

Never has a web site so accurately assessed the NRA and its tactics.

This web site does not seek to denigrate the good members of the NRA, but instead inform them about what their organization is really doing.

This site will continue to add information regarding the NRA’s support of gun control measures as we verify and process the information.

Why attack the NRA?

Put simply, the NRA is driving the gun rights bus… Right off a cliff. They need pressure from honest gun owners to stay the right course."


I WILL NEVER GIVE THE NRA EVEN A SINGLE DIME !!!

 

[California Right To Carry]

You provided convincing support that the NRA is not helping OC in CA. What about those other national groups you mentioned? Can you support the claim against them?

I assume this question was for me. SAF & CalGuns are co-plaintiffs in a case pending before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Richards v. Prieto, which also argued that states can ban Open Carry. The SAF also made that argument in the 2nd CCA (Kalchasky), the 3rd CCA (Drake), the 4th CCA (Woolard), as an amicus in the 10th CCA (Peterson) and in their 8th circuit district court case (Plastino).

Other than the NRA, either directly or through their state organizations, and the SAF, the so called gun-rights groups don't file their own lawsuits as a named plaintiff, some will file amicus briefs. The GOA/GOC is notorious for just filing amicus briefs yet by their spam-mail, one would think nothing stands between us and the abyss except for them.

Some time back, I went through the court dockets and compiled a list of organizations that filed amicus briefs opposing Open Carry. This is what I came up with:

"Gun-Rights" groups that oppose Open Carry:
The National Rifle Association (NRA)
The NRA state organization - California Rifle and Pistol Association
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)
The CalGuns Foundation
Gun Owners of California (GOC) / Gun Owners of America (GOA)

These organizations have all filed briefs opposing Open Carry:
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
The National Rifle Association
The California Rifle and Pistol Association
The Second Amendment Foundation
The CalGuns Foundation
Gun Owners of California
Gun Owners of America
The Independence Institute
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
Law Enforcement Alliance of America
Congress of Racial Equality Inc.
International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association
The Independence Institute
California State Sheriff’s Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California Peace Officers Association
Legal Community Against Violence
Major Cities Chiefs Association
Association of Prosecuting Attorneys
San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon
Professors of Law, History, Politics, and Government
Commonwealth of Virginia
Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc.,
Monumental Rifle & Pistol Club
Illinois State Rifle Association
New York Rifle & Pistol Association
Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc.
Hawaii Rifle Association
Gun Owners Foundation
Gun Owners of America, Inc.
Virginia Gun Owners Coalition
Virginia Citizens Defense League Inc.
U.S. Justice Foundation
Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund
Virginia Shooting Sports Association
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
Professors of Law, History, Politics and Government
NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund
Buckeye Firearms Foundation, Inc

The list above is not all inclusive. For example, it does include all of the named plaintiffs in all cases which argued against Open Carry nor does it include all amicus filings in those cases.

I have many, many links to court dockets, oral arguments, decisions and the like at my California Right To Carry website.

 

[eye95]

I am not going to go into exactly what you mean by a "brief opposing open carry," but I am going to ask for a very specific cite, either with quoted text or a clickable link to the text, where Buckeye Firearms, in a brief, opposed open carry.

 

[HPmatt]

I would think those filing briefs against your case probably are motivated by concern that the specifics of your case, or its venue, or your legal arguments, or lack of a highly paid legal team dealing with all sorts of legal ebellishments, might produce an outcome injurious on particular legal points to gun rights in other legal areas or jurisdictions, that don't specifically relate to OC.

Say you don't make the correct argument and allow CA to infringe on the 2A right to OC in the rest of CA, and as part of its decision they prohibit OC in all of CA and throw in additional limits on type of caliber, age of gun, ecology of bullets used, or some other crazy-A thing that always seems to percolate up out of CA and the nuts on the 9th. And then the SCOTUS declines to accept an appeal of the case - OR, WA, NV, AZ, ID and MT are screwed too.

 

[California Right To Carry]

I am not going to go into exactly what you mean by a "brief opposing open carry," but I am going to ask for a very specific cite, either with quoted text or a clickable link to the text, where Buckeye Firearms, in a brief, opposed open carry.

Sorry, but I am not going to spend the time compiling a current list with pointers to every Tom, Dick and Harry who filed an amicus brief in support of a case that argued that states can ban Open Carry. Buckeye Firearms is on the list because they filed an amicus brief in support of one of those cases.

Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry

 

[California Right To Carry]

I would think those filing briefs against your case probably are motivated by concern that the specifics of your case, or its venue, or your legal arguments, or lack of a highly paid legal team dealing with all sorts of legal ebellishments, might produce an outcome injurious on particular legal points to gun rights in other legal areas or jurisdictions, that don't specifically relate to OC.

Having repeated the opposition points made by the Open Carry opponents at CalGuns, dig a little deeper to its Chairman's comment after I filed my initial complaint. After bad mouthing me for months before the suit was filed, Hoffman posted that after having read my Complaint, he was afraid that I was going to win.

As you should recall, CalGuns wanted (and wants) a ban on Open Carry because they believe that a ban on Open Carry somehow results in their getting shall-issue concealed carry. Interesting that their lawyer Alan Gura, has never cited a single precedent supporting that argument. His argument for concealed carry has consistently been that the US Supreme Court in Heller didn't really mean what it said about Open Carry being the right guaranteed by the Constitution and the Heller Court was also wrong in saying that concealed carry can be prohibited. CalGuns/SAF/NRA/etc have all argued that states can ban Open Carry if they want to and they have lost that argument everywhere, including the 7th Circuit.

Say you don't make the correct argument and allow CA to infringe on the 2A right to OC in the rest of CA, and as part of its decision they prohibit OC in all of CA and throw in additional limits on type of caliber, age of gun, ecology of bullets used, or some other crazy-A thing that always seems to percolate up out of CA and the nuts on the 9th. And then the SCOTUS declines to accept an appeal of the case - OR, WA, NV, AZ, ID and MT are screwed too.

Your comment shows that you really haven't a clue as to how the court system works. There are only three laws currently at issue in my case, the 1967 Loaded Open Carry ban and the two recently enacted bans on unloaded Open Carry. Everything else is fantasy on your part.

If I lose on appeal and the US Supreme Court denies Cert then there will be an unresolved split between the 7th & 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. If the concealed carry cases lose here in the 9th CCA then there is no split between the circuits and absolutely no reason for the Court to grant Cert.

More to the point, even if I lose and the Supreme Court denies Cert, there is nothing to prevent you or anyone else from filing your own as-applied and categorical challenges (either broad or narrow) or even a facial challenge, with your own set of "better" legal arguments.

Were I to eventually lose, it prevents only me from mounting a Facial challenge or an as-applied challenge to the particular as-applied circumstances of my current case. I can, of course, file a new case with a different as-applied challenge but won't.

Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry

 

[eye95]

Sorry, but I am not going to spend the time compiling a current list with pointers to every Tom, Dick and Harry who filed an amicus brief in support of a case that argued that states can ban Open Carry. Buckeye Firearms is on the list because they filed an amicus brief in support of one of those cases.

Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry

Maybe, being new to OCDO, you do not know this, but if you make an assertion here, you have a responsibility to back up that assertion. You have flat-out stated that Buckeye Firearms filed a brief that was anti-open carry. Put up or shut up. We have folks here from Buckeye Firearms, and they would probably be very interested in the accusation you are making and that you are refusing to back it up.

I will link this thread in the Ohio sub-forum so they can be made aware of this.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Maybe, being new to OCDO, you do not know this, but if you make an assertion here, you have a responsibility to back up that assertion. You have flat-out stated that Buckeye Firearms filed a brief that was anti-open carry. Put up or shut up. We have folks here from Buckeye Firearms, and they would probably be very interested in the accusation you are making and that you are refusing to back it up.

I will link this thread in the Ohio sub-forum so they can be made aware of this.

I thought it was a "opinion", who the hell are you to tell someone to shutup on here?! Still feeling bad-arse behind a keyboard?:lol::lol::lol:

 

[eye95]

I thought it was a "opinion", who the hell are you to tell someone to shutup on here?! Still feeling bad-arse behind a keyboard?:lol::lol::lol:

Just tired of reading your more and more worthless crap. Back to the ignore heap with ya.

 

[California Right To Carry]

Maybe, being new to OCDO, you do not know this, but if you make an assertion here, you have a responsibility to back up that assertion. You have flat-out stated that Buckeye Firearms filed a brief that was anti-open carry. Put up or shut up. We have folks here from Buckeye Firearms, and they would probably be very interested in the accusation you are making and that you are refusing to back it up.

I will link this thread in the Ohio sub-forum so they can be made aware of this.

I have no obligation to do the leg work for someone who is too lazy to do his own research. The brief by Buckeye Firearms was filed in one of the concealed carry appeals. Check the court dockets for yourself. If that is beyond your skills then you should heed your own advice and shut up.

Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry

 

[eye95]

I have no obligation to do the leg work for someone who is too lazy to do his own research. The brief by Buckeye Firearms was filed in one of the concealed carry appeals. Check the court dockets for yourself. If that is beyond your skills then you should heed your own advice and shut up.

Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry

Again, this is OCDO. If YOU make an assertion, YOU are expected to back it up. YOU have asserted that Buckeye Firearms has filed an anti-open carry brief. YOU need to back that assertion up.

How would you like it if the head of Buckeye Firearms started making accusations about your organization and refused to back it up? I bet you wouldn't like it, would you?

Again, put up or shut up.

 

[California Right To Carry]

Again, this is OCDO. If YOU make an assertion, YOU are expected to back it up. YOU have asserted that Buckeye Firearms has filed an anti-open carry brief. YOU need to back that assertion up.

How would you like it if the head of Buckeye Firearms started making accusations about your organization and refused to back it up? I bet you wouldn't like it, would you?

Again, put up or shut up.

I don't give a rat's ass what you or Buckeye Firearms says or doesn't say. Their amicus brief is a matter of public record and you are either too lazy or lack the meager skills it would take to look up their brief. Odds are they have a link to their amicus briefs on their own website.

Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry

 

[eye95]

I don't give a rat's ass what you or Buckeye Firearms says or doesn't say. Their amicus brief is a matter of public record and you are either too lazy or lack the meager skills it would take to look up their brief. Odds are they have a link to their amicus briefs on their own website.

Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry

OK, let's try this another way. You have violated two OCDO rules with your unsubstantiated accusation. My experience tells me that the staff do not take kindly to such behavior. I have alerted them to it.

Personally, based on your behavior, of all the firearms organizations you have mentioned, I now have the least respect for yours.

 

[California Right To Carry]

OK, let's try this another way. You have violated two OCDO rules with your unsubstantiated accusation. My experience tells me that the staff do not take kindly to such behavior. I have alerted them to it.

Personally, based on your behavior, of all the firearms organizations you have mentioned, I now have the least respect for yours.

Hopefully, there is an OCDO rule against your being a troll and spamming other people's threads. If you can't handle the truth there is a simple solution, unsubscribe from my thread and stop spamming.

Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry

 

[WalkingWolf]

Somebody is still playing wannabe moderator... :lol:

AND can't make up his mind between opinions and statements. Maybe he should call the wannabe LEO for help.

 

[California Right To Carry]

Buckeye Firearms

Well how about that. It took me about two seconds to find Buckeye Firearms on the web and to locate their amicus briefs in support of concealed carry cases which argued that states can ban Open Carry.

Not only is Buckeye Firearms a concealed carry group they filed amicus briefs in Woollard and Peterson, both cases argued that Open Carry can be banned.

Which makes one wonder how few people in this forum truly support Open Carry?

Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry

 

[California Right To Carry]

Somebody is still playing wannabe moderator... :lol:

AND can't make up his mind between opinions and statements. Maybe he should call the wannabe LEO for help.

Yep, I clicked on his profile only to discover he is a prolific spammer. Unfortunately, I cannot find any way to block him.


Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry