• 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

OC Freedom

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2014
Messages
646
Location
ADA County, ID
THe journey has been long and difficult. It is a pity that you have had to endure on this forum pejorative and spiteful vindictive instead of constructive criticism. All of that pettiness is now behind you. You made it to a level that many who make lawyering their profession have failed to achieve. I know I speak for many on this forum who say thank you for the effort.

For the proceedings today, Godspeed!

Live Free or Die,
Thundar
+1
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
That didn't go so well today but I thought the panel pretty much had their minds made up (whether it's because he's pro se or they don't like public carry). Somehow, they seem to think CA's imminent danger standard is just fine and dandy. Nichols did lay out adequately that this standard is completely useless.

Luckily Young went much better and will be precedent WRT open carry.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
141
Location
PA
Real Player Only, please.

Oral argument analysis:

Charlie will lose on all issues except one. Before Charlie’s Angels get too carried away in celebration, remember that the one issue Charlie will prevail on is not having his state law claims dismissed with prejudice. In plain English, what that means is that Charlie will have the ability to assert his state law claims in State Court. But, before you pop the cork on the champagne, remember that this was merely a technical decision required of the Federal Judges. These same federal judges also have labeled his state claims as ‘futile’ because there is no 2nd Amend. Language in the Ca. Constitution. So rejoice, Charlie gets to bring a State case which will also be dismissed. That’s some victory, Charlie! I imagine that someone unsophisticated, like Thundar, will also see this as some kind of victory.

Now that I have dispensed with the results of the case, let us, as they say in figure skating, give a grade for technical performance. Suffice it to say that Charlie did not land any triple axels.

First, let me say that Charlie has always bragged about how brilliant he was in the framing of his case thru his Complaint. Yet it is precisely because his complaint was framed so poorly and narrowly that the State was able to use it against him. Young v. Hawaii may win, but Charlie’s case is a sure loser. You see, Charlie claims that there is a constitutional right to unfettered open carry outside the home. Now before you can have an ‘unfettered’ right to open carry you must have a fundamental right to just simply open carry, even if limited. So Judge Bybee asked him for his authority and he had none.

But even before we get to the argument, Mr Primetime Player was not even ready to speak when he got to the microphone. Even allowing for nerves, which the next Clarence Darrow should not have, the first words out of his mouth are the kind of disaster one only sees from complete amateurs. He states essentially that he wants to make an ‘opening statement’. Hehehehehehehehehehehhehehehehe!

No player, this is a federal appeals court and you don’t get to make opening statements. After introducing yourself you just immediately begin your argument until you are interrupted by a question, which usually takes no more than 10 sec.

Now, if you were properly prepared, you would have anticipated that early on they would ask you exactly where your open carry right derived from. You should have had an answer ready to that fundamental question. Instead the best you could stammer thru was that Heller and McDonald don’t preclude open carry outside the home. That is not a response to the question, player. Roe v Wade does not preclude open carry outside the home either.

A little frustrated, Judge Bybee then turns his attention to the issue of scrutiny. Again, a well prepared litigator would have anticipated some variation of the question asked. But our player was not prepared. The court wanted to engage in a historical analysis beginning with the Statute of Northampton. Our player’s response was that Northampton was not relevant. Now kiddies, if you learn nothing else about litigation today then please learn this; any issue that the judge in your case wants to discuss is, by definition, relevant. To tell the judge in your case that the issue that he wants to discuss is not relevant usually doesn’t get you the results you want.

If he had been prepared he could have responded with my unique argument, never before heard in an American courtroom. Rather than get bogged down in the intricacies of Northampton, he could have told the court that the historical analysis was used in the Scalia opinion to decide whether the core right applied to an individuals as opposed to a militia. Scalia did not use a ‘historical analysis’ to establish an acceptable mode of carry which is the issue before this Court and which this Court apparently is now entertaining on using in this fashion for the first time. Brilliant, if I must say so myself. Now, did our player come up with something like that? Noooooooooooooo!

Instead he gets bogged down in Northampton and concealable v. unconcealable guns etc.

Next Judge Bybee raises the issue of Wrenn v. Peruta and which one the court is bound by in terms of methodology in using a historical analysis v. scrutiny approach. If he had given my answer originally he may not have faced this dilemma. But since he is unprepared and can’t think quickly on his feet, he is stuck with Peruta.

I could go on but I will conclude by saying that real players don’t make opponents arguments in their argument in chief. Real players drive the direction of the argument and know how to pivot back when a judge strays from the important issues.

Conclusion, you are not and never have been ready for primetime, player.

And don’t bother with your retort; this is now for real players only.
 
Last edited:

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
141
Location
PA
That didn't go so well today but I thought the panel pretty much had their minds made up (whether it's because he's pro se or they don't like public carry). Somehow, they seem to think CA's imminent danger standard is just fine and dandy. Nichols did lay out adequately that this standard is completely useless.

Luckily Young went much better and will be precedent WRT open carry.
I told you he wasn't ready.

And remember, he led people to believe that this was a slam dunk.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,677
Location
here nc
hummmm...C&L...in the distance do you hear the air coming out of the sails as a spinning house falls and lands hard ?

btw, thanks for the continued commentary, while not well received by some...it was quite interesting to hear a viable perspective...

cheers
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
141
Location
PA
hummmm...C&L...in the distance do you hear the air coming out of the sails as a spinning house falls and lands hard ?

btw, thanks for the continued commentary, while not well received by some...it was quite interesting to hear a viable perspective...

cheers
If you remember, my first post in this thread was about him not being a primetime player because he was trying to use another case to claim it was dispositive in his case.

So, fast forward 18 months to today and he begins by telling the Court that he wants to make an opening statement............. in relation to another case (Young), not even his own case. Some people just never learn.

Did you see how fast the Court shot down that BS?
 
Last edited:

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
141
Location
PA
To Charlie and his Angels

Charlie……….. Angels……….. wherefore art thou?

For I come to bury your egos, not praise you. LOL

If Shakespeare doesn’t work for you, how about some Gomer Pyle (I am versatile):

Shame!...... Shame!.........Shame!...... Misleading the poor people out there and fraudulently raising expectations. LOL
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
141
Location
PA
So let's recap on just where Charlie is at present and what exactly it took to get there. He spent $200 and filed an defective complaint in District Court, which was thrown out. Then he spent $400 and filed a Notice of Appeal and defective Brief which is about to be thrown out. Wow.... sure took a lot to 'arrive'.

Any success he has from here will be his first success since he has lost at every step of the way!

Finally, please don't be angry at Dorothy for simply pulling back the curtain on the Great Wizard of Oz. LOL!

And don't hog the popcorn.
So, I have to amend this post because I was wrong. According to Charlie's own statement in his introduction at oral argument, he filed his appeal as a pauper and therefore did not pay the $400 filing fee.

Just trying to keep it real. LOL
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
141
Location
PA
My Chuck Wepner

"I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;"
http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/julius_caesar/10/
[h=1][/h]

Chuck Wepner, the Bayonne Bleeder and inspiration for the Rocky film, tells the following story about the Mohammed Ali fight:

A couple of days before the Ali fight he goes out and buys his wife a beautiful blue negligee.

It was his wife’s custom to listen to his fights on radio rather than attend in-person because she could not stand watching him get beat up.

So, he gets back to the hotel room from his shopping trip, gives his wife the negligee and tells her that he wants her to be wearing it when he gets back from the fight because she is going to be going to bed with the heavyweight champion of the world.

Of course, he loses the fight and when he gets back to his room he finds his wife standing there in the blue negligee. And she simply says to him “Am I going to Ali’s room or is he coming to mine”?


Charlie is now our ‘Chuck Wepner’. I am just the play-by-play man, calling it like I see it. Don’t be envious of me because I used to play the position well and therefore am an expert on how the position should be played. Don’t give me the stink-face because you don’t like what I say. I’m just calling it like I see it. Don’t get mad at me if you would not have called the play the same way. After all, until now I have been the only one with the courage to actually call the play. If you want the play called another way then step-up and make your own call. Be courageous; put your own reputation on the line.

I gave my analysis on his oral argument. If I called the play wrong then tell me where I called it wrong. But please don’t tell me ‘Dorothy, you have to close the curtain again because we don’t like what we see. We don’t like to see our Great Wizard exposed’.

Have I been a little cruel about it? Maybe. Have I taken a certain delight about it? Definitely. But not once did I complain about anything he said about me; and he had plenty to say before. But where is he or his Angels today?
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
141
Location
PA
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?
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
141
Location
PA
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:

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
141
Location
PA
No Oc4me

What happens when Charlie makes an oral argument?

There is no OC4me in California.
 
Last edited:

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,941
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
141
Location
PA
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:

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,941
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
C&L, stop foaming at the mouth and think

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
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
141
Location
PA
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.
 
Top