• 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

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
Don't expect that to be pleasantly received. And it will open you be thoroughly split open, gutted, tied up and roasted on a spit by a judge that will know more than you ever hope or think you could learn. Which will likely happen anyway.

And I will leave it at that, and reply to this thread no more.

Like I said earlier. Good luck

Nemo

Nemo:

Read the R&R/Order from the District Court. They gave him 3 opportunities to write a proper Complaint before dismissing his case. He couldn't do it.
That is what his appeal is about. It really has nothing to do with any constitutional claims.

Now, look at the Decision and tell me where they got it wrong.

Misrepresenting the holdings of cases; white guys making racial animus claims; asking for an 'infringement test' that does not exist; the list goes on and on.

With those kinds of 'litigation skills', what do you think his chances of success are?

Then, add to that the fact that the cocky SOB's (strategically obtuse & baseless) reasoning has every other living creature as inferior (including the judges deciding his case), and then tell me what you think.

Funny, I was in Ca. last month and offered to debate (expose) him. Did not hear a peep from him. Where was that grandiose self-confidence last month?
 
Last edited:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
If you oppose my lawsuit then write a letter to the Clerk of the 9th circuit

I have a lot of detractors here, a site which purports to support Open Carry (the Open Carry of long guns notwithstanding).

Some of my detractors claim to be lawyers, or astronaut/lawyers (it's difficult to make out their ramblings).

Good News! If you fall into one or more of these categories then let me clue you in on a little know fact. You are free to write a letter to the Clerk of the Court for the 9th circuit court of appeals and vent your spleen. Your letter will be filed on the official government docket for the world to read. And I'll certainly post your letters filed with the court at my website for ease of access.

There is no page limit to the letter you write so don't hold back.

Use this for the Subject line: RE: Charles Nichols v. Edmund Brown, Jr., et al 9th Circuit Case No.: 14-55873

Use this mailing address:
Molly Dwyer, Clerk of Court
Office of the Clerk
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
P.O. Box 193939
San Francisco, CA 94119-3939

Real lawyers shouldn't have to be told to identify themselves as lawyers and provide their bar numbers and courts they are admitted to practice before.

I can't speak for the Court but I certainly will be amused by what my detractors have to say in a more public forum than here, a website which virtually nobody visits and hasn't visited for years.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
--snipped--
..........in a more public forum than here, a website which virtually nobody visits and hasn't visited for years.

Some would ask if that were true, why do you post here?

OCDO is arguably the best site to promote and defend the right to open carry handguns (long guns under certain circumstances).

Our numbers continue to grow/proliferate.
 

wabbit

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
153
Location
briar patch, NM
Some would ask if that were true, why do you post here?

OCDO is arguably the best site to promote and defend the right to open carry handguns (long guns under certain circumstances).

Our numbers continue to grow/proliferate.

The all might buck.

Positive or negative attention works especially the free publicity off this nationally acclaimed gun site.

I am sure the poster goes to other sites to garner support by stating, lookie at how mean the members treated me...i'm doing a public service, by the way wish to contribute to contribute?

P. T. would be proud, tho the snake charmers are more interesting as there is an element of danger which this pusher of oils lacks.
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
399
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
No panel, anywhere in this country, is stupid enough to give this joker what he is asking for.

That may be, but the only other option for the court is to essentially split with Moore and say that the 2A has no application in public. THAT would make it a very ripe case for SCOTUS.

What is the outcome you see?
 

wabbit

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
153
Location
briar patch, NM
mr moderator, might i engage in a small bit of tongue N cheek comment.

Charles, now that was the ultimate attention getter, but it seems you drank too much of your own purple kool-aide last nite didn't you?

if inappropriate please pm and i will of course delete
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
mr moderator, might i engage in a small bit of tongue N cheek comment.

Charles, now that was the ultimate attention getter, but it seems you drank too much of your own purple kool-aide last nite didn't you?

if inappropriate please pm and i will of course delete

Mr. Moderator, please do not delete the post, it perfectly captures the caliber of mental midgets opposing me.

No CCW For You (2).jpg
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
That may be, but the only other option for the court is to essentially split with Moore and say that the 2A has no application in public. THAT would make it a very ripe case for SCOTUS.

What is the outcome you see?

As I have said several times, his 'case' is not going to be decided on the merits. An answer to his complaint was never filed and so technically speaking he does not even have a 'case'. If he had any type of legal training he would understand the concept of 'joinder of issue'. It is a concept you learn in Litigation 101. But of course since our Clarence Darrow has never spent one day in law school, he doesn't have a clue about what I am talking about. Look it up and you will understand why I have always said that he does not have a case.

The court gave him 3 chances to write a proper complaint but he could not do it. He is now toast.

The best that he could ever hope for is that his case is remanded back for yet 1 more opportunity to get it right, but that is not going to happen. Mighty Casey has struck out.

Expect the decision to spend the entire time addressing all the defects in his complaint . But your not going to get any new 2nd Amend. law from this dog. This dog don't hunt.
 
Last edited:

wabbit

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
153
Location
briar patch, NM
Mr. Moderator, please do not delete the post, it perfectly captures the caliber of mental midgets opposing me.

View attachment 13338

Charles, so glad this is a public forum, as you certainly cast your desperation by characterizing the Jurists about to review the merits of your illustrious case as "mental midgets."

now where did the post go which had the court's address for commentary.
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
399
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
As I have said several times, his 'case' is not going to be decided on the merits. An answer to his complaint was never filed and so technically speaking he does not even have a 'case'. If he had any type of legal training he would understand the concept of 'joinder of issue'. It is a concept you learn in Litigation 101. But of course since our Clarence Darrow has never spent one day in law school, he doesn't have a clue about what I am talking about. Look it up and you will understand why I have always said that he does not have a case.

The court gave him 3 chances to write a proper complaint but he could not do it. He is now toast.

The best that he could ever hope for is that his case is remanded back for yet 1 more opportunity to get it right, but that is not going to happen. Mighty Casey has struck out.

Expect the decision to spend the entire time addressing all the defects in his complaint . But your not going to get any new 2nd Amend. law from this dog. This dog don't hunt.

What defects are there specifically? I don't recall the state's brief mentioning a defect, which if there were, you bet they would be pressing on right now.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
What defects are there specifically? I don't recall the state's brief mentioning a defect, which if there were, you bet they would be pressing on right now.

You can read the Court's Decision from below for the full version or my earlier posts for the Reader's Digest version.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Do Astronaut/Lawyers begin as Space Cadets?

What defects are there specifically? I don't recall the state's brief mentioning a defect, which if there were, you bet they would be pressing on right now.

On April 6, 2017, the state filed a written waiver to any standing challenge it may have implied in its Answering Brief. The state also conceded that there are no defects in my legal arguments.

And, of course, any competent lawyer knows that when an Appellee (in my appeal Governor Brown and Attorney General Becerra) fails to respond to an argument made in the Appellant Opening Brief, the Appellee(s) have waived (forfeited) their defense.

My Second Amendment argument, in part, is that the McDonald decision fully incorporated the right defined in Heller against the states and that the McDonald decision fully incorporated the Second Amendment against the states.

Instead of arguing that the right incorporated against the states by McDonald was a right confined within the walls of one's home, the state waived that argument and instead argued that the court of appeals should adopt the state's historical analysis which directly conflicts with the right defined in Heller and McDonald.

The state's analysis was, primarily, a convoluted interpretation of the English 14th century Statute of Northampton which even Chief Judge Thomas said:

"Certainly, this history does not provide a ready or easy answer to this case. Indeed, history—especially history as old as that recited here—is often ambiguous or contradictory."

Judge Thomas then went onto say:

"Although all the nineteenth-century cases cited by the majority cautioned against restrictions on the open carrying of weapons, none of them—except the discredited, outlier Bliss—suggests that restrictions on carrying concealed weapons implicate the Second Amendment. See Chandler, 1 La.Ann. at 490; Nunn, 1 Ga. at 251; Reid, 1 Ala. at 616-17. And nothing in these cases or Chase's Blackstone even hints that a restriction on carrying concealed weapons would become invalid if restrictions were placed on open carry. Rather, they suggest that restrictions on concealed carry are always valid, while there are limits to restrictions on open carry."

The Peruta en banc court would then go on to say that there is no right of the general public to carry handguns concealed in public. The en banc court also said that it was not deciding the Open Carry question.

My Second Amendment argument, from the day I filed my initial complaint back in November of 2011, has always been limited to Open Carry. Nowhere in my pleadings or filings in the district court or on appeal can one construe a concealed carry challenge, not even for travelers or persons while actually on a journey.

"The AGO does not contend that Mr. Nichols has to violate California’s open-carry statutes to have standing to challenge their constitutionality. Rather, the AGO concedes that Mr. Nichols has standing to pursue his lawsuit, including the appeal.

The AGO does not contend that Mr. Nichols’s appeal is defective because it seeks a ruling on the question of whether people not barred by law from possessing firearms have the right, under the Second Amendment, to carry firearms openly in public. The AGO has emphasized the narrowness and specificity of the question presented, but has not contended that the way that Mr. Nichols has framed his case is improper. "
State's attorney letter to the court of April 6, 2017

As I said before, anyone who thinks the Office of the Attorney General [AGO] was wrong to waive its defenses to California's Open Carry bans is free to write a letter to the Clerk referencing my appeal and make their case.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
On April 6, 2017, the state filed a written waiver to any standing challenge it may have implied in its Answering Brief. The state also conceded that there are no defects in my legal arguments.

And, of course, any competent lawyer knows that when an Appellee (in my appeal Governor Brown and Attorney General Becerra) fails to respond to an argument made in the Appellant Opening Brief, the Appellee(s) have waived (forfeited) their defense.

My Second Amendment argument, in part, is that the McDonald decision fully incorporated the right defined in Heller against the states and that the McDonald decision fully incorporated the Second Amendment against the states.

Instead of arguing that the right incorporated against the states by McDonald was a right confined within the walls of one's home, the state waived that argument and instead argued that the court of appeals should adopt the state's historical analysis which directly conflicts with the right defined in Heller and McDonald.

The state's analysis was, primarily, a convoluted interpretation of the English 14th century Statute of Northampton which even Chief Judge Thomas said:

"Certainly, this history does not provide a ready or easy answer to this case. Indeed, history—especially history as old as that recited here—is often ambiguous or contradictory."

Judge Thomas then went onto say:

"Although all the nineteenth-century cases cited by the majority cautioned against restrictions on the open carrying of weapons, none of them—except the discredited, outlier Bliss—suggests that restrictions on carrying concealed weapons implicate the Second Amendment. See Chandler, 1 La.Ann. at 490; Nunn, 1 Ga. at 251; Reid, 1 Ala. at 616-17. And nothing in these cases or Chase's Blackstone even hints that a restriction on carrying concealed weapons would become invalid if restrictions were placed on open carry. Rather, they suggest that restrictions on concealed carry are always valid, while there are limits to restrictions on open carry."

The Peruta en banc court would then go on to say that there is no right of the general public to carry handguns concealed in public. The en banc court also said that it was not deciding the Open Carry question.

My Second Amendment argument, from the day I filed my initial complaint back in November of 2011, has always been limited to Open Carry. Nowhere in my pleadings or filings in the district court or on appeal can one construe a concealed carry challenge, not even for travelers or persons while actually on a journey.

"The AGO does not contend that Mr. Nichols has to violate California’s open-carry statutes to have standing to challenge their constitutionality. Rather, the AGO concedes that Mr. Nichols has standing to pursue his lawsuit, including the appeal.

The AGO does not contend that Mr. Nichols’s appeal is defective because it seeks a ruling on the question of whether people not barred by law from possessing firearms have the right, under the Second Amendment, to carry firearms openly in public. The AGO has emphasized the narrowness and specificity of the question presented, but has not contended that the way that Mr. Nichols has framed his case is improper. "
State's attorney letter to the court of April 6, 2017

As I said before, anyone who thinks the Office of the Attorney General [AGO] was wrong to waive its defenses to California's Open Carry bans is free to write a letter to the Clerk referencing my appeal and make their case.

Hey Press:

Notice that with all the ******** he spews concerning the merits of his case he never addresses the real issues in his case, albeit, that his case was thrown out on procedural grounds before there was joinder of issue. He just doesn't get it. His appeal should have centered around why his complaint was adequate to proceed, not on the merits of his case. But since he probably has no clue as to the necessary technical components that comprise an adequate complaint, he can never address those issues.

But of course, since his complaint was in-fact defective (white guy making racial animus claims, e.g.) there is no argument that could save him.

By the way, he was totally wrong about the analysis and outcome in Wrenn, and the abilities of Atty. Alan Gura. How convenient that we have not heard a peep from him on that issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Is OpenCarry.org breaking the law?

Moderator, have you ever reported lubed&coked for impersonating an attorney. Also, why did you allow him to threaten me with a false police report? Is it the policy of OpenCarry.org to facilitate crime?
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Moderator, have you ever reported lubed&coked for impersonating an attorney. Also, why did you allow him to threaten me with a false police report? Is it the policy of OpenCarry.org to facilitate crime?
I do not know who or what he is.

His opinion may not conform to yours - that does not make it a crime.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
Why can't a 'white' plaintiff raise racial animus claims? Cite a legal authority for your assertion please!

That is not exactly what I said.

What I said is that white guys cannot make an 'as applied' racial animus claim; which is what Charlie plead.

You guys really should read the Decision in his case to get the full flavor and explanation.

If you want the Reader's Digest version read post #125.

He plead his racial animus claim wrong. He plead all of his causes of action wrong. That is why his case was thrown out.
 
Last edited:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Why can't a 'white' plaintiff raise racial animus claims? Cite a legal authority for your assertion please!

He will never give you a straight answer. However, I have filed one with the court which cites two legal authorities. You can read it here -> http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/92-ROM1.pdf

What judge Otero held was that I could not make a race based equal protection challenge because I had not plead (stated in my Complaint) that the law had been enforced against me because of my race. In support of which he cited a 9th circuit decision filed after he had denied the state's motion to dismiss my First Amended Complain (FAC) (My FAC contained the same race based equal protection claim). The decision Judge Otero cited (Furnace) was a case involving a religious equal protection claim by a prisoner who was upset because he had not been served vegetarian meals.

All of the relevant briefs and FRAP 28(j) letters are linked at my website for anyone to read -> http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=6922

The inmate had never claimed that he was denied vegetarian meals because of his religion or because the guards had a policy or custom of denying vegetarian meals based upon one's religion.

From my initial complaint filed in November of 2011, I had argued that the law was racially motivated and that I suffer an ongoing injury from its enforcement.

Judge Otero had no problem with the way I framed my race based equal protection claim until he issued final judgment on May 1, 2014. On July 3, 2013, Judge Otero couldn't find anything wrong with my race based equal protection claim when he denied my motion for a preliminary injunction on July 3, 2013. Instead, Judge Otero said he was denying my motion because I had not provided evidence showing that the law was disproportionately enforced. Presumably, he was relying on a US Supreme Court decision from 1985 which required that one show disproportionate enforcement by a preponderance of the evidence. I don't know because Judge Otero did not cite a case in support of his conclusion that I was required to make a showing that the law is disproportionately enforced against minorities. I did prove disproportionate enforcement in my motion for partial summary judgment and I provided the proof in my Second Amended Complaint which courts are required to accept as true.

But that doesn't matter because a decade later (1996) the US Supreme Court held that animus (and it doesn't have to be racial animus) is sufficient reason to strike down a law even under rational basis review.

Moreover, Judge Otero's holding that one must plead that a criminal statute has been enforced against him because of his race would preclude pre-enforcement challenges by racial minorities.

Whichever way my appeal goes, I don't thing the three judge panel is going to remain silent on that very bizarre holding of Judge Otero.


Another thing lubed&cocked doesn't seem to understand, which is pretty conclusive proof that he is not a lawyer despite its claim to the contrary, is the rationale Judge Otero applied is not at issue in my appeal. The state conceded in its Answering Brief that "[T]he district court here relied on case law subsequently superseded to apply rational-basis review and to uphold California’s open-carry laws..."

The state's attorney did not defend the rationale of the district court in his Answering Brief, he flat out stated that Judge Otero got the case law wrong and Judge Otero was wrong to apply rational-basis review.

For that matter, the entirety of my appeal is what the courts call a de novo review which, in the context of my appeal where the facts are not in dispute, means that it doesn't matter what rationale the district court gave for upholding California's Open Carry bans.

No deference is given to the district court decision under de novo review. Either the court of appeals holds that there is no Second Amendment right even one inch outside the doors to our homes or the court of appeals holds that the Second Amendment does extend beyond the doors to our home but nevertheless, the bans are constitutional.

Doesn't it seem odd that the self-professed lawyer/astronauts here can't cite any case law in support of their rantings and ravings and yet I, someone who is not an attorney, have no difficulty in providing pinpoint citations in support of my arguments?
 
Top