NRA and open carry

[Rusty Young Man]

What a shame to see a self-professed supporter of RKBA so happy to see efforts to expand the ability to legally carry a gun for self-defense failing. It appears that we have in "California Right to Carry" a combination of opposition to the personal choice to carry a gun discretely coupled with an ego far more interested in his own aggrandizement than it is in actually advancing RKBA.

Of course, I hope his efforts to get OC recognized as a constitutional right that cannot be banned or regulated with licensure requirements is completely successful.

I will not be at all surprised if the same 9th circuit judges that have shown such hostility to CC demonstrate sufficient legal gymnastics to rule equally hostile toward OC.

Charles

Didn't read it as an egomaniac's agenda, more of a summary of how the courts are locking themselves into making OC the "unrestricted", Constitutionally-protected method of carry (Kalifornia cannot ban both OC and CC).

I think there is sound logic for supporting OC and not CC as the method of lawful (though licensed?) carry in Kalifornia. CC can be ignored, OC is plainly visible to casual observation, and just might help in promoting more carry and more gun owners to vote to restore their Rights.

Regardless, thanks to California Right To Carry for the post.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

--Moderator edited--

heh heh heh. Nailed it.

 

[solus]

mate, the ground seems to racing towards you quickly...hope things are in order...

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

Didn't read it as an egomaniac's agenda, more of a summary of how the courts are locking themselves into making OC the "unrestricted", Constitutionally-protected method of carry (Kalifornia cannot ban both OC and CC).

I think there is sound logic for supporting OC and not CC as the method of lawful (though licensed?) carry in Kalifornia. CC can be ignored, OC is plainly visible to casual observation, and just might help in promoting more carry and more gun owners to vote to restore their Rights.

I think one has to be rather naïve to believe that the courts can be "locked" into anything. The history, "precedence," and "logic" cited by the 9th circuit in opposition to CC in Peruta work just as well to oppose OC. Alternatively, the 9th can always go about quoting Heller that the RKBA is not unlimited and is subject to reasonable restrictions. Nobody here will be surprised that the most liberal court in the nation is going to have a very different view of what is a "reasonable restriction" than anyone here would.

I have no beef if anyone believes OC is a better personal decision or legal strategy than CC. I support RKBA.

My beef is with those who are hostile to CC (or hostile to OC) and relish in failures to advance our legal ability to carry.

Charles

 

[California Right To Carry]

heh heh heh. Nailed it.

Did you notice that the monkey threw its feces at me and yet it is my simple, poetic, two word deflection which gets edited out?

No matter. Half the battle is won. Concealed carry, as a matter of law, is dead as a doorknob in the 9th and 10th Circuits and has never been recognized as a right by any Federal appellate court or state high court and certainly not by SCOTUS.

Success is the best revenge and, as I said, half the battle is won.

 

[randian]

(Kalifornia cannot ban both OC and CC).

Who says? The only people saying that is us, our progressive courts will not let themselves be so limited. Even if they do not formally declare there is no right to OC, I guarantee they will find an exception (like "public safety", the rational-basis judge's favorite) that amounts to the same thing.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Did you notice that the monkey threw its feces at me and yet it is my simple, poetic, two word deflection which gets edited out?

No matter. Half the battle is won. Concealed carry, as a matter of law, is dead as a doorknob in the 9th and 10th Circuits and has never been recognized as a right by any Federal appellate court or state high court and certainly not by SCOTUS.

Success is the best revenge and, as I said, half the battle is won.

View attachment 13160

OC/CC .. recognition of these rights is not required. Lets see how they rule on the OC part. I imagine that you think that they have painted themselves into a corner, yes?

Get ready for the turpentine and 200 page opinion ... just sayin.

 

[California Right To Carry]

OC/CC .. recognition of these rights is not required. Lets see how they rule on the OC part. I imagine that you think that they have painted themselves into a corner, yes?

Get ready for the turpentine and 200 page opinion ... just sayin.

The California legislature and 49 years of the California courts expanding the scope of California's gun laws have painted the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals into the corner.

Unless I have a stroke, get hit by a car or otherwise screw up my opening brief the court of appeals will either have to strike down the Open Carry bans I am challenging under the Second Amendment or they will have to conclude that the Second Amendment does not even apply to those parts of one's home in which California decides to ban the Second Amendment.

If the Court of Appeals chooses door #2 then it creates multiple RULE 10 splits not to mention the multiple direct conflicts with SCOTUS.

If I lose, it will not be by a 200 page opinion because, like the minority dissents in the en banc Peruta decision, the court will not have any cases to back up its decision.

 

[press1280]

The Peruta/Richards Full Court petitions would delay the concealed carry cases in the 9th Circuit from falling like a row of dominoes, or so I thought.

On June 24th, Nordstron v. Dean (Ventura County) was dismissed with prejudice by district court judge Dolly M. Gee. The same attorney has two more cases in district court teetering on the brink: Christopher Anderson et al v. John Scott et al and Birdt v. San Bernardino Sheriffs Department where the attorney, Jon Birdt, had been denied a concealed carry permit for lacking "good moral character." The court has asked the parties to file supplemental briefs which are due on June 30th and then the court will rule on the motions. It doesn't take a crystal ball to predict the outcome of the case. The Nordstrom case also involved a failure to meet the good moral character requirement of the state law. He has one case already on appeal in which the appellant was denied a concealed carry permit for lack of residency, Sigitas Raulinaitis v. Ventura County Sheriffs Department and another against the City of Torrance and the Los Angeles Sheriff's department. The City of Torrance was dismissed as a defendant because it changed its policy and issued the plaintiff-appellant a concealed carry permit. This, of course, renders the appeal moot even if the en banc Peruta Court had not held that there is no right to carry a weapon concealed in public. Raulinaitis has a second appeal against the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. Birdt was also denied a CCW by the LASD and LAPD, which is also on appeal. The NRA/CRPA has a concealed carry appeal out of Orange County which is stayed pending the mandate in Peruta.

Michael Vogler v. City of Pasadena et al was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff after the en banc decision in Peruta v. San Diego was published. Vogler is an attorney who recognizes the futility of beating a dead horse. He told me he was going to be filing his own Open Carry lawsuit. I reminded him that I already have one waiting on appeal and the likely outcome of his filing a case is that his would be stayed pending a decision in my California Open Carry appeal. As of this posting he has not filed a new lawsuit. Neither has the NRA filed its promised Open Carry lawsuit. :lol:

James Rothery, et al. v. County of Sacramento, et al is the oldest concealed carry case on appeal. The parties have filed a joint motion to stay the case for 90 days after the mandate is issued in Peruta v. San Diego.

Rothery, like all of the other California concealed carry cases, did not seek to carry openly in any way. All of the plaintiffs and plaintiff-appellants read the Heller decision and said to themselves "Gosh! The Heller decision said Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution and that concealed carry is not a right and can therefore be banned. This means I have a right to a concealed carry permit!" :banana: Rothery's attorney has already lost one concealed carry case on appeal, Mehl v. Blanas, nearly three years ago. It escaped being one of the dominoes to fall.

There are two cases out of Hawaii, Baker v. Kealoha and Young v. Hawaii. The first is a preliminary injunction which the attorneys have abandoned. It is stayed pending Peruta and will get kicked back to the district court. The other (Young) is an appeal by a then newly minted lawyer who missed the day in law school where he was told that one of the few things a court cannot do is to compel a legislature to write a new law and his request for relief regarding carrying a handgun in public was so poorly written (I think he got the idea from Gura's Palmer v. DC case) that the court can grant his alternate relief and he would still not be able to carry a handgun in public. The best the Young case can hope for is a remand back to the district court for a do-over.

So what was that? A dozen or so concealed carry cases plummeting to the earth with nothing to look forward to other than crashing and burning.

Leaving my lone, Open Carry case as the last one standing.

How has Baker been abandoned?

 

[davidmcbeth]

The California legislature and 49 years of the California courts expanding the scope of California's gun laws have painted the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals into the corner.

Unless I have a stroke, get hit by a car or otherwise screw up my opening brief the court of appeals will either have to strike down the Open Carry bans I am challenging under the Second Amendment or they will have to conclude that the Second Amendment does not even apply to those parts of one's home in which California decides to ban the Second Amendment.

If the Court of Appeals chooses door #2 then it creates multiple RULE 10 splits not to mention the multiple direct conflicts with SCOTUS.

If I lose, it will not be by a 200 page opinion because, like the minority dissents in the en banc Peruta decision, the court will not have any cases to back up its decision.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...he-courts-are-rigged-yet-Even-Thomas-notes-it

Need to read this thread and related docs. They just make up crap. Every day.

Your case should win on the premise that OC is OK .... but even CC is and they ruled against that. So we'll see.

Keep on posting !

 

[California Right To Carry]

Mr. Baker informed the parties and the lower court that he would no longer seek...

How has Baker been abandoned?

Baker's attorney filed a document asking that his case be remanded and that the court of appeals do so without granting his preliminary injunction saying " Mr. Baker informed the parties and the lower court that he would no longer seek
a preliminary injunction before Petitioners filed the instant Petition."

Baker v. Kealoha 12-16258

Listen to the oral arguments in Baker sometime. Both of Baker's attorneys suffer from a serious case of stage-fright. One of them, Beck, won't even go out on stage. Instead, he hides backstage writing bad briefs.

 

[press1280]

The California legislature and 49 years of the California courts expanding the scope of California's gun laws have painted the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals into the corner.

Unless I have a stroke, get hit by a car or otherwise screw up my opening brief the court of appeals will either have to strike down the Open Carry bans I am challenging under the Second Amendment or they will have to conclude that the Second Amendment does not even apply to those parts of one's home in which California decides to ban the Second Amendment.

If the Court of Appeals chooses door #2 then it creates multiple RULE 10 splits not to mention the multiple direct conflicts with SCOTUS.

If I lose, it will not be by a 200 page opinion because, like the minority dissents in the en banc Peruta decision, the court will not have any cases to back up its decision.

Or we get something like this:

WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, with whom DUFFY, Senior District Judge, joins, writing for the court as to Part III.B:

We are pleased to join Judge Niemeyer's fine opinion with the exception of Part III.B. In our view it is unnecessary to explore in this case the question of whether and to what extent the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller applies outside the home.

475*475 This case underscores the dilemma faced by lower courts in the post-Heller world: how far to push Heller beyond its undisputed core holding. On the question of Heller's applicability outside the home environment, we think it prudent to await direction from the Court itself. See Williams v. State, 417 Md. 479, 10 A.3d 1167, 1177 (2011) ("If the Supreme Court, in [McDonald's] dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly."); see also Sims v. United States, 963 A.2d 147, 150 (D.C.2008).

There may or may not be a Second Amendment right in some places beyond the home, but we have no idea what those places are, what the criteria for selecting them should be, what sliding scales of scrutiny might apply to them, or any one of a number of other questions. It is not clear in what places public authorities may ban firearms altogether without shouldering the burdens of litigation. The notion that "self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be," Eugene Volokh, Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443, 1515 (2009), appears to us to portend all sorts of litigation over schools, airports, parks, public thoroughfares, and various additional government facilities. And even that may not address the place of any right in a private facility where a public officer effects an arrest. The whole matter strikes us as a vast terra incognita that courts should enter only upon necessity and only then by small degree.

Preceded by, "We join our sister circuits...."

 

[California Right To Carry]

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...he-courts-are-rigged-yet-Even-Thomas-notes-it

Need to read this thread and related docs. They just make up crap. Every day.

Your case should win on the premise that OC is OK .... but even CC is and they ruled against that. So we'll see.

Keep on posting !

As I've pointed out before, the "levels of scrutiny" shell game is inapplicable to my case. Read the concurrence in Peruta en banc. Even if "public safety" were to be used as the basis for an intermediate scrutiny analysis, none of the reasons the concurrence gave for applying intermediate scrutiny applies to the Open Carry bans. There is no "good cause" or "good moral character" exceptions to any of the bans I challenge.

The laws I challenge are not "regulatory laws" they are prohibitory laws and not just prohibitory laws but bans. Even the state's attorney referred to them as bans.

Moreover, they are not laws "regulating" anything, not even the discharge of firearms. They are bans on the mere carriage of firearms in a manner which has always been required in order to promote public safety.

Concealed carry has always posed a great threat to public safety and that threat has enabled regulations and prohibitions on concealed carry, even prohibiting the police (State v. Reid) from concealed carry under the police powers of the state.

I'm not saying that there won't be a decision against me. I think it unlikely but the one thing it won't be is a long one. There is no case law to support a ban on Open Carry without conflicting with SCOTUS and creating Rule 10 splits.

 

[press1280]

Baker's attorney filed a document asking that his case be remanded and that the court of appeals do so without granting his preliminary injunction saying " Mr. Baker informed the parties and the lower court that he would no longer seek
a preliminary injunction before Petitioners filed the instant Petition."

Baker v. Kealoha 12-16258

Listen to the oral arguments in Baker sometime. Both of Baker's attorneys suffer from a serious case of stage-fright. One of them, Beck, won't even go out on stage. Instead, he hides backstage writing bad briefs.

I'm not seeing it. Was this recent?

 

[California Right To Carry]

Or we get something like this:

WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, with whom DUFFY, Senior District Judge, joins, writing for the court as to Part III.B:

Preceded by, "We join our sister circuits...."

Off the top of my head it looks like you are quoting part of an old Fourth Circuit decision (Masciandaro). A poor choice as the 4th Circuit Woollard case is the one which you should have cited but even that is irrelevant as the 4th Circuit ducked the question, which was limited to handguns. Never mind that the relief sought was a permit to carry concealed even though permits issued pursuant to the statute did not distinguish between concealed and open carry.

And so, if you had meant to say that the 9th Circuit will simply duck the Second Amendment question then that is always a possibility but if it does then I have my SCOTUS Rule 10 splits and even under the narrowest reading of Heller and McDonald, the 2A applies to my home. The bans I am challenging apply to my home.

Neither Masciandaro or Wollard raised an in-home challenge (Masciandaro couldn't) and I suspect that Maryland, unlike California, exempts private property.

For me to lose, the court of appeals can't duck the Second Amendment issue as the 4th Circuit did. The facts of my case doesn't allow it. Either the Second Amendment applies nowhere, not even the home, and I lose or the Second Amendment applies even one inch outside the doors to my home and I win.

Thanks for playing.

 

[California Right To Carry]

I'm not seeing it. Was this recent?

It depends upon one's definition of "recent"? It was filed on May 2, 2014.

But have no fear, Beck will file something before the mandate is issued in Peruta which will screw up his case even more. Have you ever read the Complaint filed in Baker?

Take a memo to yourself. Should you ever choose to write a Complaint. Best not to write a Complaint when drunk, stoned, or otherwise mentally impaired.

 

[randian]

The whole matter strikes us as a vast terra incognita that courts should enter only upon necessity and only then by small degree.

They only that about things disfavored by progressives. They never advocate such restraint about abortion or transgender "rights".

 

[randian]

For me to lose, the court of appeals can't duck the Second Amendment issue as the 4th Circuit did. The facts of my case doesn't allow it. Either the Second Amendment applies nowhere, not even the home, and I lose or the Second Amendment applies even one inch outside the doors to my home and I win.

I think you are seriously overconfident. They can and will duck the issues. Courts have near-infinite ability to claim "X doesn't apply so we need not decide Y". Moreover, they can always say "even if you have the right, it's subject to [Z]", where Z is whatever is convenient for the state to hang a ban on. Yes you technically won, but the status quo is maintained and you still won't be able to carry.

 

[press1280]

It depends upon one's definition of "recent"? It was filed on May 2, 2014.

But have no fear, Beck will file something before the mandate is issued in Peruta which will screw up his case even more. Have you ever read the Complaint filed in Baker?

Take a memo to yourself. Should you ever choose to write a Complaint. Best not to write a Complaint when drunk, stoned, or otherwise mentally impaired.

I see it. Interestingly the District Court punted the first time as well: “join[ed] other courts in awaiting direction from the Supreme Court with respect to the outer bounds of the Second Amendment,”. Going back to the District Court in light of Peruta would be worthless since the Circuit only resolved the concealed part of his complaint, not the open part. If I were him I'd want his case re-heard by the original 3 judge panel in light of Peruta, if that's even possible.

 

[California Right To Carry]

I think you are seriously overconfident. They can and will duck the issues. Courts have near-infinite ability to claim "X doesn't apply so we need not decide Y". Moreover, they can always say "even if you have the right, it's subject to [Z]", where Z is whatever is convenient for the state to hang a ban on. Yes you technically won, but the status quo is maintained and you still won't be able to carry.

First of all there is no "Z" by which the court can uphold the bans.

I am not "overconfident." I am confident in my ability to write an Opening Brief which will require the court of appeals to decide the Second Amendment questions. But as I have pointed out earlier, even ducking the questions creates a SCOTUS Rule 10 split in my case. However, if the 9th Circuit rules against me and my cert petition is denied then nothing has changed in California but an important thing will have changed regarding future challenges to Open Carry bans and that is there will be an unresolved SCOTUS Rule 10 split.

In 2002, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals published a decision which held that the Second Amendment was not an individual right. This decision conflicted with the 5th Circuit case, US v. Emerson but it was not until 2007 in District of Columbia v. Heller that SCOTUS decided to grant a Second Amendment cert petition which resolved the circuit splits.

Unresolved Rule 10 splits never go away. They wait to be resolved until SCOTUS is ready to resolve them AND somebody files a cert petition which asks the right question(s).

My critics need to look in the mirror and ask themselves whether or not their fatalism is actually a projection of their opposition to Open Carry?

Of course, opponents of Open Carry need not reflect on that question. Their opposition to me is an opposition to Open Carry.