• 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

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
--deleted by moderator--

ya know, i am truly glad you are showing your own self destruction of your credibility to all citizens who frequent this site as some actually held a belief you were a viable fighter for the cause.

by your own hand you have destroyed what forward advances you have so diligently strived for throughout your lifetime.

you might put together a support group to oversee your crash, which is coming sooner than you are expecting...

again, best of luck

ipse
 
Last edited by a moderator:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
btw charles, based on your outlandish statements and such, i would be remiss if i didn't offer to contact the proper authorities to immediately provide the needed assistance you require.

since you are awkwardly communicating with me, do you want me to notify your local authorities, e.g. state police, and provide your website information so they might quickly locate you to do a welfare check?

ipse
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA

Experienced litigators do not contact their adversaries with stupid questions like that! His question implies that something magical has just occurred which should cause them to drop the case when in reality, it is the State that is kicking his ass. Did he not notice who the appellant is? Experienced litigators know what the issue(s) is/are, submit their brief, wait for a response and then submit a reply brief. No questions need to be asked.

He suggests that somehow he has to either win his case on appeal or appear before the Supreme Court in some Armageddon circuit split. His chances of winning his case in the 9th Circuit are slim and his chance of appearing before the Supreme Court are none!

The fundamental questions that need to be resolved concerning the 2nd Amendment are not going to be litigated, briefed and argued before the Supreme Court by some wanna-be lawyer. The Supreme Court is not so delusional as to allow something as important as that to be decided in this fashion.


Good luck, Charlie. I cannot personally attack you because I do not know you. However, your strategy and analysis of cases demonstrates how little you truly know about legal reasoning and how things really work.


I am now ready to receive your egotistical rant.

INCOMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Experienced litigators do not contact their adversaries with stupid questions like that!

Something did occur and that was the State of California conceding my case during the en banc oral arguments for Peruta/Richards. Now that the state has taken the position that it still opposes my appeal, my appeal cannot be sent to mediation which happened in the Nordyke case.

Which should be obvious to anyone who has followed Second Amendment cases, particularly those in this circuit.

Good luck, Charlie. I cannot personally attack you because I do not know you. However, your strategy and analysis of cases demonstrates how little you truly know about legal reasoning and how things really work.

Solus will soon be discovering that California's criminal threat statute extends to whatever cave he is hiding in as does the reach of the Federal courts. As to my legal reasoning, the en banc court of appeals in Peruta v. Richards published a decision consistent with what I argued in the district court for roughly two and a half years which is half the victory I sought and more than any of the concealed carry cases have achieved.

But feel free and come out of hiding from the anonymity of the Internet and share with us your qualifications to comment on anything, let alone the law.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
Something did occur and that was the State of California conceding my case during the en banc oral arguments for Peruta/Richards.


But feel free and come out of hiding from the anonymity of the Internet and share with us your qualifications to comment on anything, let alone the law.

Your first statement illustrates for all to see just what a novice you are at this. A party cannot concede a case in a totally unrelated and unconsolidated case with different parties involved!!!!!!

As to your second statement; it is called a JD degree from an accredited American law school, the passing of the bar exam in multiple states and 26 years of litigation experience in a major metropolitan American city.

By the way, I noticed that there was no response to my previous post as to how exactly your going to get the Supreme Court to take YOUR case.

I am sorry, but what are your qualifications again?
 
Last edited:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Your first statement illustrates for all to see just what a novice you are at this. A party cannot concede a case in a totally unrelated and unconsolidated case with different parties involved!!!!!!

I never claimed that the State's concession in Peruta/Richards was binding in my case. You should work on your reading comprehension.

As to your second statement; it is called a JD degree from an accredited American law school, the passing of the bar exam in multiple states and 26 years of litigation experience in a major metropolitan American city.

I'm sorry but this is the internet, your claim to be a lawyer is worth as much as your claim to be an astronaut. When you get down from outer space, prove to me that you are a lawyer. Email me, from your company domain, include your bar number. Because otherwise...

I am sorry, but what are your qualifications again?

I am the guy who has won half of what his lawsuit sought to achieve and am the only guy, of all of the lawyers behind the concealed carry cases, who understands what the Baldwin. Heller, McDonald and Caetano decisions said.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
I am the guy who has won half of what his lawsuit sought to achieve and am the only guy, of all of the lawyers behind the concealed carry cases, who understands what the Baldwin. Heller, McDonald and Caetano decisions said.

I regret to inform you that you have not won half of anything! So far the State has kicked your ass. You do realize your the appellant in your case, don't you? Appellants are appellants because they have lost, comprende!
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
I regret to inform you that you have not won half of anything! So far the State has kicked your ass. You do realize your the appellant in your case, don't you? Appellants are appellants because they have lost, comprende!

And yet, the legal argument which I have been making since I first filed my lawsuit, that Open Carry is the right and concealed carry is not a right and can be banned, was affirmed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as to the second half and left open by the same en banc panel as to the first half. Which is pretty much what I asked the en banc court to do in my Amicus brief and motion.

When the stay of my appeal expires, I will go into court having already won half of my case (thanks to Peruta/Richards) without even having filed my opening brief. Seems to me that if anybody's ass was kicked it was the State of California's given that it argued in the district court that the Open Carry bans are constitutional because California issues concealed carry permits. That is an argument the state can no longer make in my appeal. :lol:

And of course if you were really a lawyer then you would have read the final judgment in my case and discovered that the district court judge based his decision on my Second Amendment claim entirely on the long since vacated, sharply divided three judge panel opinion in Peruta.

Since you insist on hiding in the shadows, perhaps you could regal us with your decades of legal experience and explain to the class why a district court judgement based on a vacated three judge panel decision will prevail on appeal?

Pinpoint citations in support of your position will help, not hinder, your claim to be an astronaut, I mean lawyer.
 
Last edited:

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
And yet, the legal argument which I have been making since I first filed my lawsuit, that Open Carry is the right and concealed carry is not a right and can be banned, was affirmed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as to the second half and left open by the same en banc panel as to the first half. Which is pretty much what I asked the en banc court to do in my Amicus brief and motion.

When the stay of my appeal expires, I will go into court having already won half of my case (thanks to Peruta/Richards) without even having filed my opening brief. Seems to me that if anybody's ass was kicked it was the State of California's given that it argued in the district court that the Open Carry bans are constitutional because California issues concealed carry permits. That is an argument the state can no longer make in my appeal. :lol:

And of course if you were really a lawyer then you would have read the final judgment in my case and discovered that the district court judge based his decision on my Second Amendment claim entirely on the long since vacated, sharply divided three judge panel opinion in Peruta.

Since you insist on hiding in the shadows, perhaps you could regal us with your decades of legal experience and explain to the class why a district court judgement based on a vacated three judge panel decision will prevail on appeal?

Pinpoint citations in support of your position will help, not hinder, your claim to be an astronaut, I mean lawyer.

In the sales industry it is called bait and switch. You keep trying to take credit for what another attorney (whom you despise) has accomplished. You have not accomplished anything other than losing your case. I was not referring to any lawyer or other case such as Peruta or Wrenn or any other. I was refering to you and your case and what you and your case have accomplished; which is absolutely nothing! You have lost at each step of the way and you should stop taking credit for other people's work.

You should stop using other people's accomplishment to inflate your own ego. Your claim that you are the only one who understands what the cases say; REALLY, REALLY?

What have YOU accomplished?
 
Last edited:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
You should stop using other people's accomplishment to inflate your own ego. Your claim that you are the only one who understands what the cases say; REALLY, REALLY?

What have YOU accomplished?

cocked&locked claims to be a lawyer and yet refuses to prove it. Falsely claiming to be a lawyer is a criminal offense.

The specific holding of the en banc panel in Peruta v. San Diego and Richards v. Prieto is that there is no right to carry a weapon concealed in public. Even the plaintiffs' attorneys don't dispute that is the holding of the court and yet the astronaut, I mean self-proclaimed lawyer, cocked&locked is that I don't understand what the "cases" say.

Yes, really.

Folks should take note that not only has cocked&locked not cited even a single case to support his ramblings, he clearly does not understand the central holding of the en banc Peruta/Richards decision which is:

"We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve
or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry
concealed firearms in public."

Given that the holding of the court occurs on the first page of the opinion (Slip Op., pg 11), this speaks volumes about coked&locked posts.

Those familiar with my case are also aware that, unlike the Peruta/Richards lawsuits, my lawsuit includes an in-home claim. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is bound by the judicial interpretations of California law, another factoid any real attorney would know, which means for me to lose the court of appeals will have to conclude that the Second Amendment does not apply to one's home.

Guess how many SCOTUS Rule 10 splits that will create, not to mention conflicting directly with the SCOTUS decisions in Heller, McDonald and Caetano. :lol:
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
cocked&locked claims to be a lawyer and yet refuses to prove it. Falsely claiming to be a lawyer is a criminal offense.

The specific holding of the en banc panel in Peruta v. San Diego and Richards v. Prieto is that there is no right to carry a weapon concealed in public. Even the plaintiffs' attorneys don't dispute that is the holding of the court and yet the astronaut, I mean self-proclaimed lawyer, cocked&locked is that I don't understand what the "cases" say.

Yes, really.

Folks should take note that not only has cocked&locked not cited even a single case to support his ramblings, he clearly does not understand the central holding of the en banc Peruta/Richards decision which is:

"We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve
or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry
concealed firearms in public."

Given that the holding of the court occurs on the first page of the opinion (Slip Op., pg 11), this speaks volumes about coked&locked posts.

Those familiar with my case are also aware that, unlike the Peruta/Richards lawsuits, my lawsuit includes an in-home claim. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is bound by the judicial interpretations of California law, another factoid any real attorney would know, which means for me to lose the court of appeals will have to conclude that the Second Amendment does not apply to one's home.

Guess how many SCOTUS Rule 10 splits that will create, not to mention conflicting directly with the SCOTUS decisions in Heller, McDonald and Caetano. :lol:

So the short answer is that you and your case have accomplished nothing yet! So why the delusions of grandeur?
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
CA Attorney General Harris claimed 2A does not apply to minorities.

Well, well, yet another expert that appears to know everything about something he himself has never done. That being filing and winning an open carry lawsuit in California. Thank you very much for your advice. Perhaps I should give some advice on this subject as well. I too know absolutely nothing about the subject matter

In the State of California's motion for judgment on the pleadings (which the district court granted), California Attorney General Harris claimed that the Second Amendment does not apply to racial minorities and therefore the California's racially motivated Open Carry bans are constitutional.

Guess what the first question will be in the opening brief of my appeal?

I am going to go out on a limb and predict that not even the most die-hard opponent of the Second Amendment 9th Circuit Judge is going to agree with the state that minorities fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Otis McDonald of McDonald v. Chicago fame was, himself, Black. If, as the state claims, that minorities do not have a Second Amendment right then Otis McDonald should have lost.

That same is true of the US Supreme Court justices. Which of them is going to deny a cert petition which raises the question as to whether or not racial minorities have a Second Amendment right.

The lawyers in Peruta/Richards could have made the same racial claims as I did (not to mention making an in-home claim) but they did not.

As I said before I first filed my California Open Carry lawsuit back in 2011, for me to lose the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will have to disregard not only US Supreme Court binding precedents but its own longstanding, binding precedents.

But what do I know, I am not an astronaut/lawyer like cocked&locked. :lol:
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Lets take this slowly so you do not get confused and everyone can see the point.

Now that we have established your losing cases, can you tell us about all your winning cases that would justify your massive ego?
Tin_foil_hat_2.jpg


Well folks, cocked&locked has proven in his many rambling posts that he is neither a lawyer nor an astronaut.

I for one don't have anymore time to waist with him. He's going on my ignore list and so I won't be responding to any of his future bloviations.

Those one or two of you left here at OpenCarry.org who actually support Open Carry can follow the progress of my appeal at my website. One more stay of my appeal pending issuance of the mandate in Peruta v. Richards. After that, we'll see whether or not the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals can find a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, even in one's home. :lol:
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
In the State of California's motion for judgment on the pleadings (which the district court granted), California Attorney General Harris claimed that the Second Amendment does not apply to racial minorities and therefore the California's racially motivated Open Carry bans are constitutional.

Guess what the first question will be in the opening brief of my appeal?

I am going to go out on a limb and predict that not even the most die-hard opponent of the Second Amendment 9th Circuit Judge is going to agree with the state that minorities fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Otis McDonald of McDonald v. Chicago fame was, himself, Black. If, as the state claims, that minorities do not have a Second Amendment right then Otis McDonald should have lost.

That same is true of the US Supreme Court justices. Which of them is going to deny a cert petition which raises the question as to whether or not racial minorities have a Second Amendment right.

The lawyers in Peruta/Richards could have made the same racial claims as I did (not to mention making an in-home claim) but they did not.

As I said before I first filed my California Open Carry lawsuit back in 2011, for me to lose the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will have to disregard not only US Supreme Court binding precedents but its own longstanding, binding precedents.

But what do I know, I am not an astronaut/lawyer like cocked&locked. :lol:

Not interested in what you claim to see in your crystal ball. I want to know about your existing winners that justify your existing ego, comprende?
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
In the State of California's motion for judgment on the pleadings (which the district court granted), California Attorney General Harris claimed that the Second Amendment does not apply to racial minorities and therefore the California's racially motivated Open Carry bans are constitutional. ...
Do you have a link to where she said that? THAT I'd like to read!

Thanks.

(Oh, and please a direct link to the filing or whatever)
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Do you have a link to where she said that? THAT I'd like to read!

Thanks.

(Oh, and please a direct link to the filing or whatever)

I can tell you that Mayor Daley of Chicago told me that he passed gun control ordinances to keep black folks from having guns.

So I do not doubt the posting's information at all.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
View attachment 13168


Well folks, cocked&locked has proven in his many rambling posts that he is neither a lawyer nor an astronaut.

One more stay of my appeal pending issuance of the mandate in Peruta v. Richards. After that, we'll see whether or not the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals can find a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, even in one's home. :lol:

Earth to Charlie:

We already have a right to bear arms inside one's home. Even draconian places like DC and New York allow possession inside one's own home. So if this is what your lawsuit is about then all I can say is what a waste of time.

Charlie, are you attempting to win a right we already have so you can claim some type of false victory?

Charlie, please tell me your going to get me something more than this. Please tell me your not going to waste my time with your case.

But I guess that with:

1. No formal legal education;
2. No formal litigation experience;
3. A losing litigation record of 0/1;
4. A declaration that he is qualified to interpret cases better than any lawyer; and,
5. A propensity to take credit for the work of others.

expecting any type of real victory may be asking for a bit too much!

You can ignore me, you can ignore common sense, you can make predictions based on looking into your crystal ball, but your not able to ignore the fact that as we stand here right now your case is a loser, has always been a loser and stands no chance of being reviewed by the Supreme Court in it's current posture with you, my dear wanna-be attorney, at the helm.
 
Last edited:
Top