• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
Tried to upload the pdf. too large
Here's a summary : the gov't can try to regulate your natural right to carry.

Its takes them over 100 pages to try to grant the gov't authority for something that they never had or will ever have the authority to regulate.

The old divide and conquer scheme. And most people eat it up.

Want to play tic-tac-toe now?
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Prohibitory laws vs Regulatory laws

Now that concealed carry has gone down in flames in the 9th Circuit the haters just gotta be hating my California Open Carry lawsuit not forgetting the guy who filed it of course. :lol:

As usual, we have all of these "experts" and tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nut-jobs predicting the demise of my appeal on the various forums for various reasons.

A couple of them have pointed to the concurrence which said that it would apply intermediate scrutiny to the California concealed carry statute.

"I concur fully in the majority opinion. I write separately
only to state that, even if we assume that the Second
Amendment applied to the carrying of concealed weapons in
public, the provisions at issue would be constitutional. Three
of our sister circuits have upheld similar restrictions under
intermediate scrutiny. Such restrictions strike a permissible
balance between “granting handgun permits to those persons
known to be in need of self-protection and precluding a
dangerous proliferation of handguns on the streets.”

There are so many reasons why that does not apply to Open Carry but let us assume for the sake of argument that those who wish me to fail or correct and that whatever panel of judges assigned to my appeal would be inclined to apply intermediate scrutiny. They cannot under the prior precedents which are binding on any three judge panel and precedents that an en banc panel would have to overrule in order to apply a watered down version of intermediate scrutiny to my appeal.

The insurmountable obstacle faced by the eventual panel assigned to my case is that unlike the CCW statute, which is a regulatory statute, the bans I am challenging are just that bans (known as prohibitory laws). Even the state's attorney referred to them as bans. Given that the laws I am challenging are prohibitory laws, there is no "good cause" or "good moral character" provisions which can be satisfied in order to (for the purpose of self-defense): openly carry a loaded firearm even one inch outside of the door to our homes in incorporated cities and in unincorporated county territory where the discharge of a firearm is prohibited, to openly carry an unloaded handgun in the same prohibited places, or to openly carry an unloaded long gun in an incorporated city outside of a motor vehicle. And, of course nobody who lives in a county with 200,000 or more people, regardless of his satisfying all of the requirements under the CCW statutes, can obtain a license to openly carry a handgun and California does not require a license to openly carry a long gun. If you are in a place which does not require permission to possess a firearm, such as on the grounds of a school, then the open carry of a long gun is legal without a license as I have just described.

In the 9th Circuit, even a ban on foie gras is subject to strict scrutiny.

For me to lose my Second Amendment challenge, the court of appeals will have to conclude that the Second Amendment does not extend even one inch outside the doors of our homes.

Which would in turn give me the SCOTUS Rule 10 splits that none of the concealed carry cases have and whichever judges are assigned to my appeal will know this because I will have said so in my Opening Brief.

P.S. Would someone tell "wolfwood" to stop lying about me? I never asked him to represent someone in San Diego for free or otherwise in an Open Carry case. I don't even know anyone in San Diego. I told him once in an aside to one of the endless questions he asked me two or three years ago that my original strategy was to hire a lawyer and to file an Open Carry lawsuit in each of California's Federal districts but as I could not find a competent lawyer or plaintiffs, it never panned out (and it is too late to do so today if you are curious).

Also, he looks particularly foolish presenting himself as a qualified lawyer and then asking questions on the forums which every third year law student knows the answer to. Perhaps it is because he is a self-described vegetarian, Californian Buddhist with an apparent fascination with switch blades and other exotic knives coupled with an insatiable need to be liked by the concealed carry trolls.

I don't know and more importantly, I don't care what his flaws are. The court of appeals is going to b*tch slap his two cases out of Hawaii and it is just a matter of time before he loses his second machine-gun case. Why on earth anyone would bring a machine-gun case when we haven't even solidified a right to carry so much as a loaded or unloaded flintlock in public (other than in the 7th Circuit) is beyond me.

But then I am not a self-described vegetarian, Californian Buddhist with an apparent fascination with switch blades and other exotic knives coupled with an insatiable need to be liked by the concealed carry trolls who doesn't know answers to legal questions which any third year law student should know.:D

Mark Twain - Never argue with stupid people.jpg
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
A couple of them have pointed to the concurrence which said that it would apply intermediate scrutiny to the California concealed carry statute.

"I concur fully in the majority opinion. I write separately
only to state that, even if we assume that the Second
Amendment applied to the carrying of concealed weapons in
public, the provisions at issue would be constitutional. Three
of our sister circuits have upheld similar restrictions under
intermediate scrutiny. Such restrictions strike a permissible
balance between “granting handgun permits to those persons
known to be in need of self-protection and precluding a
dangerous proliferation of handguns on the streets.”

There are so many reasons why that does not apply to Open Carry
I had hoped that the RKBA community had learned our lesson with the Scary Looking Gun Ban of 1994. When we allow the gun haters to divide us into various camps, the gun grabbers win. Fudds vs Self-Defense vs Collectors vs Sport Shooters resulted in the gun grabbers winning. OCers vs CCers will have the same result.

Sadly, but not surprisingly, the 9th circuit dismissed out of hand the one State court ruling that laid out a logical case for why any infringements of RKBA are a violation of constitutional protections.

The "logic" used in the opinion quoted draws no lines between OC and CC. It speaks only of the need to "[preclude] a dangerous proliferation of handguns on the streets." Whether the handgun can be seen or not doesn't seem to materially affect how "dangerous" that handgun might be.

The insurmountable obstacle faced by the eventual panel assigned to my case is that unlike the CCW statute, which is a regulatory statute, the bans I am challenging are just that bans (known as prohibitory laws). Even the state's attorney referred to them as bans. Given that the laws I am challenging are prohibitory laws, there is no "good cause" or "good moral character" provisions which can be satisfied in
So simply requiring that those who have satisfied the "good moral character" clause to obtain a permit to carry be allowed to OC if they choose would "strike a permissible balance between “granting handgun permits to those persons known to be in need of self-protection and precluding a dangerous proliferation of handguns on the streets"?

Or maybe, the court simply finds that the "right" protected by the 2nd amendment isn't absolute and is subject to "common sense restrictions". So long as those restrictions are rational and strike a balance between the need for individual self-defense and general public order and safety, they pass muster at the intermediate scrutiny level.

In the 9th Circuit, even a ban on foie gras is subject to strict scrutiny.
I sincerely hope the 9th circuit applies strict scrutiny to the possession of firearms in public. I won't hold my breath on the most overturned circuit court in the nation getting it right.


For me to lose my Second Amendment challenge, the court of appeals will have to conclude that the Second Amendment does not extend even one inch outside the doors of our homes.
I think they are far more creative and clever than you give them credit.

I sincerely hope you are successful. I hope that everyone working to advance RKBA is successful.

I wish you and others were not hostile to CC nor any other aspect of our RKBA.


But then I am not a self-described vegetarian, Californian Buddhist with an apparent fascination with switch blades and other exotic knives
I don't know that there is any reason to disparage persons based on dietary choices, religious affiliation, or an affinity for edged weapons (which are also covered by RKBA).

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I didn't see any disparagement there.
In context of the full post, I think the disparagement is fairly obvious. I suppose had he included in the list of things he isn't, but believes his nemeses is, such things as homosexual, Jew, black, woman, redneck, or Confederate-loving Southerner, the disparagement might have been more obvious.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Well, once again, we disagree. What a surprise!
Obviously we disagree as the last couple of posts make clear. Nothing wrong with honest disagreement. The key is to remain civil in disagreement and to focus on issues rather than personalities.

All the best.

Charles
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,375
Location
White Oak Plantation

I didn't see any disparagement there. He just said that he wasn't one. It seemed more like a limiting factor in his identification. He is not a member of those groups. He is not a polar bear, a Presbyterian or a giant panda. That doesn't mean that he is disparaging those things. Just narrowing things down a little. There are a lot more things that each of us "aren't" that things that we are. That doesn't mean we disparage those groups, just because we are not members of them and state that we are not.
Broaden your vision to include the fact that his case was not to promote OC in California but to compel state permission on demand for CC. That would be a good start, getting shall issue in California, but his efforts would be (have been) better spent on moving to a liberty respecting state such as Utah.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States

I didn't see any disparagement there. He just said that he wasn't one. It seemed more like a limiting factor in his identification. He is not a member of those groups. He is not a polar bear, a Presbyterian or a giant panda. That doesn't mean that he is disparaging those things. Just narrowing things down a little. There are a lot more things that each of us "aren't" that things that we are. That doesn't mean we disparage those groups, just because we are not members of them and state that we are not.
I am not any of the things listed but to be honest, it could be fun to be a giant panda every now and then. :D

On an unrelated note, have email subscribers to this thread been receiving email notifications of new posts? I haven't and so I've unsubscribed/resubscribed in the hope it was some forum glitch (and yes, I checked my bulk mail/spam folder).
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,674
Location
here nc
Obviously we disagree as the last couple of posts make clear. Nothing wrong with honest disagreement. The key is to remain civil in disagreement and to focus on issues rather than personalities.

All the best.

Charles
mate, as i focus on the issues, are you planning on practicing what you are preaching? if so kudos...

ipse
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
I don't know that there is any reason to disparage persons based on dietary choices, <snip>

Charles
Coming from a long line of workers at the Chgo Stockyards ... its a family tradition that non-beef eaters are disparaged. With every generation the disparagement grows weaker...

Traditions don't have to make sense. And this one is rather a fun one.

Maybe an exception to the rule? I doubt it...many people see vegans as not being normal.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
California still opposes my Open Carry Appeal

I emailed the state's attorney for Governor Brown and Attorney General Harris asking what his clients current position on the Second Amendment is given the concession of the California Solicitor General during the en banc oral arguments in Peruta v. San Diego/Richards v. Prieto that, as per Heller, the Second Amendment right to openly carry a firearm extends beyond the curtilage of one's home.

This is the response I received just a few minutes ago:

The AGO does not have any comment to make in response to your questions below, other than to make clear that the AGO will be opposing your appeal in your open-carry case.

I followed up with an email reminding the state's attorney that Governor Brown is also an appellee and to confirm his position.

I expect to receive the same response regarding Governor Brown. :lol:

Update: The state's attorney replied that Governor Brown has the same position.
 
Last edited:

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
141
Location
PA
I emailed the state's attorney for Governor Brown and Attorney General Harris asking what his clients current position on the Second Amendment is given the concession of the California Solicitor General during the en banc oral arguments in Peruta v. San Diego/Richards v. Prieto that, as per Heller, the Second Amendment right to openly carry a firearm extends beyond the curtilage of one's home.

This is the response I received just a few minutes ago:

The AGO does not have any comment to make in response to your questions below, other than to make clear that the AGO will be opposing your appeal in your open-carry case.

I followed up with an email reminding the state's attorney that Governor Brown is also an appellee and to confirm his position.

I expect to receive the same response regarding Governor Brown. :lol:

Update: The state's attorney replied that Governor Brown has the same position.
Very amateur move! Just shows you are not ready for primetime, player.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,674
Location
here nc
And once again my response to a personal attack is deleted while the personal attack against me remains.
you consider cocked&locked's observational commentary of your approach a personal attack...really?

instead of discerning which part of your approach possibly needed shoring up like OC Freedom did, i am sure your bruised ego kicked and you launched into a personal aimed tirade...

btw, since you are only assuaging your ego by posting your honorable, however, ego driven quest on this public forum yet whoever challenges your approach cause significant distress to you so you are personally lashing out at those members.

which if your ego would let you, you would see why your posts are being deleted.

by the way this should not be construed as a personal attack.
ipse
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,674
Location
here nc
And once again --edited by Moderator--.

And once again his post will remain and my response will be deleted. It appears that the moderator's call for "civil" discourse is a one way street.
first, thanks for providing your positive substantiation to my previous post since, through your own rantings, my assessment was right on the money.

second, and your presence and attitude during judicial proceedings is similar to your degrading tratment of members of this public forum???

finally, so you truly believe your comments toward me constitutes your perception of civil discourse...wow!!

yet another about to crash head on w/reality...

best of luck...

ipse
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top