The 9th Circuit has said concealed carry is not a 2A right, so for the 9 the Circuit open carry IS the only manner to exercise the right to bear arms. For more populated areas in California the state forbids open carry, so there is a ban on bearing arms in more populated areas of California. These more populated areas are less populated than DC where SCOTUS rejected in Heller DC's argument about how they were different because they are a crowded city. (I know Heller was at its core a "Keep Arms" not a "Bear Arms" case, but the idea is that the 2A does exist, even in crowded cities.)
I have more faith than you do cocked and locked, but few of the concealed carry cases have delivered anything so, what is the real problem with this attempt to deliver an open carry challenge? Charles case, if lost in the manner you indicate, would not appear to set a bad precedent and harm the cause, yes?
Live free or die,
Thundar
If you want to know what is wrong with Charlie's case then read my post #86 and 88. Additionally, read below what the lower court and his opponent said about his case.
My main problem with Charlie is that he loves to criticize other cases and their lawyers in an attempt to bolster his nonexistent skills. But just look at what the lower court and opponent in his case had to say about HIS CASE AND LAWYERING SKILLS!
After reading it, does anyone think his case is going anywhere but straight to the circular file?
In NY, we call it 'he be a wannabe, writing a check his dumb-ass can't cash'.
Nichols’s opening brief attempts—but fails—to demonstrate that a
broad open-carry right is the historic legal tradition in the United States.
Nichols cites 35 cases from the 1800s that purportedly stand for the
proposition that “Open Carry is the right” guaranteed by the Second
Amendment. AOB 59-60. In most instances, Nichols has misrepresented
the holdings of the cases. Only a few of Nichols’s case cites provide limited
support for his claim: Nunn from Georgia and progeny; Chandler from
Louisiana and progeny; Sutton v. State, 12 Fla. 135 (1867); and Porter v.
State, 66 Tenn. 106 (1874)). Courts in those four States—Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, and Tennessee—held that those States could prohibit concealed
carry only if open carry remained available. But, as discussed above, those
cases are outliers in the entire American experience, and may not even
reflect the way that these laws were administered on a day-to-day basis.
More importantly, those cases do not support Nichols’s claim here that—
regardless of the availability of concealed carry—ordinary, law-abiding
residents of California are entitled to unfettered open carry.
Most of the cases that Nichols cites do not hold or imply that the
Second Amendment guarantees a broad right to openly carry firearms in
public places.
Remember when he was boring us with his assertion that open carry is the right guaranteed by the constitution..... and he doesn't carry a purse..... blah.... blah....... blah. Well as you can see from above, and what I tried to tell him is, the 35 cases he cites do not support his core assertions. That is not just my assessment, it was the findings of the lower court! And on that limited issue, they are absolutely correct!
