• 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

Thundar

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

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,338
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
“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)
How many times do I have to post this?

The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution.

This was clarified and confirmed in 2008, when the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.

The Heller court said: "we find." A finding is a holding, it's mandated. The court did NOT say we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation IN YOUR HOME.

More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed,’” id. The Court reiterated at page 613, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

Now that the USSC has declared the Second Amendment applies to the states (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S._742), they too can’t regulate the keeping and bearing of arms in case of confrontation.

Additionally, the Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. ____ (2016) has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.” In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.”

At the extreme, since some states regulate concealed carry as a privilege that leaves open carry untouchable.
 

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
How many times do I have to post this?

The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution.

This was clarified and confirmed in 2008, when the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.

The Heller court said: "we find." A finding is a holding, it's mandated. The court did NOT say we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation IN YOUR HOME.

More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed,’” id. The Court reiterated at page 613, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

Now that the USSC has declared the Second Amendment applies to the states (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S._742), they too can’t regulate the keeping and bearing of arms in case of confrontation.

Additionally, the Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. ____ (2016) has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.” In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.”

At the extreme, since some states regulate concealed carry as a privilege that leaves open carry untouchable.
Good info, thanks !
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
National reciprocity is based on (in most states) the PRIVILEGE of concealed carry, not the RIGHT to do so.
Horse hockey. Absent mention of specific mode of carry our Second Amendment's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to all modes of carry. The tired, old argument that "no once concealed back then" is hogwash. Of course they did. Anyone with a pistol and a long coat couldn't help but CC.

Those who rely on Google, for God forbid, Huffington Post, to tell them what our Founding Fathers intended, are sublime fools.

Fortunately, our Founding Fathers wrote many paragraphs detailing precisely what they meant. Much of their commentary was collected in the 1982 Congressional Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Good read.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,022
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Horse hockey. Absent mention of specific mode of carry our Second Amendment's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to all modes of carry. The tired, old argument that "no once concealed back then" is hogwash. Of course they did. Anyone with a pistol and a long coat couldn't help but CC.

Those who rely on Google, for God forbid, Huffington Post, to tell them what our Founding Fathers intended, are sublime fools.

Fortunately, our Founding Fathers wrote many paragraphs detailing precisely what they meant. Much of their commentary was collected in the 1982 Congressional Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Good read.
Even though you and I agree on the meaning of the Second Amendment, I was accurately stating the current state of jurisprudence as well as the bill's content.
 
Last edited:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
...I was accurately stating the current state of jurisprudence as well as the bill's content.
That's how I saw it as well.

National Reciprocity, ipso facto, recognizes licensed privileges, and ignores the rights.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,425
Location
Florida
That's how I saw it as well.

National Reciprocity, ipso facto, recognizes licensed privileges, and ignores the rights.
ignorance is bliss in the gun community. "muh guns" but they don't research or understand historical context of anything. okay, not everyone, but the majority of american citizens, including gun owners and "gun nuts" are ignorant and rely solely on emotion for arguments.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,338
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
That's how I saw it as well.

National Reciprocity, ipso facto, recognizes licensed privileges, and ignores the rights.
This is how sick congress is when it comes to the 2A. Look at 16 USC 1a-1b.
(a) Congressional findings:
Congress finds the following:
(1) The 2d amendment to the Constitution provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

(2) Section 27.42 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that, except in special circumstances, citizens of the United States may not “possess, use, or transport firearms on national wildlife refuges” of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
(3) The regulations described in paragraph (2) prevent individuals complying with Federal and State laws from exercising the 2d amendment rights of the individuals while at units of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
(4) The existence of different laws relating to the transportation and possession of firearms at different units of the National Wildlife Refuge System entrapped law-abiding gun owners while at units of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
(5) Although the Bush administration issued new regulations relating to the 2d amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in units of the National Wildlife Refuge System that went into effect on January 9, 2009—
(A) on March 19, 2009, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction with respect to the implementation and enforcement of the new regulations; and
(B) the new regulations—
(i) are under review by the Obama administration; and
(ii) may be altered.
(6) Congress needs to weigh in on the new regulations to ensure that unelected bureaucrats and judges cannot again override the 2d amendment rights of law-abiding citizens on 90,790,000 acres of land under the jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
(7) Federal laws should make it clear that the 2d amendment rights of an individual at a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System should not be infringed.
(b) Protection of right of individuals to bear arms in units of the National Wildlife Refuge System:
The Secretary shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm, including an assembled or functional firearm, in any unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System if—
(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and
(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.
So, out of one side of congresses mouth they find that "'The 2d amendment to the Constitution provides that ‘‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'’’.

Then, out of the other side of their mouth say only if "the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System is located."

When it comes to firearms, is congress saying they now recognize the 10th. Amendment?
 
Top