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.
“We find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” DC v. Heller, 554 us. 570, 592, 171 L. Ed 2d 637, 129 S. Ct. 2783 (2008)
It is Incase of confrontation, not in case you have already been confronted (imminent danger)