PDA

View Full Version : Open carry arrest to create standing for a Federal lawsuit...?


SanPedroShooter
05-22-2012, 6:09 AM
Once again, groan......

Someone else should make a comment cause I dont have one.

http://www.ktla.com/videogallery/70067504/News/Man-Not-Arrested-After-Bringing-Rifle-to-Pier---Glen-Walker-reports

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_20676105/open-carry-activist-packs-heat-make-point-redondo

And AB144 does not, or will not apply to this guy because he is trying to get arrested... He just got a ticket, although the po-lice did jack his gun.

Is CN losing his last few marbles? I do find it somewhat humorus that the RB police are sort of handling him with a gentle touch... I think some of those UOC payouts may have smacked a few hands, but this guy is seriously stepping on his dick here, and ours too...

You dont see Gura down at the pier carrying around his rifle on a sunday.....

From the Daily Breeze article:

He is endangering the safety the community by pushing a political agenda and putting dangerous firearms into our daily lives," said Sheri Barnett, a spokeswoman for the group. "He is scaring the community and inciting gun violence." Huh...?

A pair of tourists looked on as Nichols walked around the pier, distributing a press release aimed at building support - political and financial - for his lawsuit.

"I think it would be intimidating for other people to see some armed man," said Gary Boccabella, who was visiting the area from Calgary with his wife, Pamela. "You have to look at safety and security. I would ask him why he thinks it's necessary to carry a rifle."

taperxz
05-22-2012, 6:47 AM
CN has to stand before a judge for open carrying a long arm that was illegally taken from him. Unless he was in a GFSZ, he has a case.

Where that takes us, helps us or hurts us? I have no idea at this point.

SanPedroShooter
05-22-2012, 6:52 AM
CN has to stand before a judge for open carrying a long arm that was illegally taken from him. Unless he was in a GFSZ, he has a case.

Where that takes us, helps us or hurts us? I have no idea at this point.

Right, thats why I dont really have a comment. He wasnt formally taken into custody, in fact the copppers just walked ten feet behind him as he cruised the pier, a place the city attorney has deceided is a city 'park' and therefore can ban guns... I will go out a limb and guess they were waiting for orders from on high...

They did take his rifle and create a report, I assume CN will get a ticket or a summons in the mail. But maybe not. Remember that O. Henry story about the bum trying to get into prison for the winter, but he couldnt get arrested no matter what he did?

Maybe CN can go down to the pier and shoot a few seagulls. They would probably arrest him for that.....

taperxz
05-22-2012, 6:57 AM
CN said his firearm was taken illegally. It appears it was. If LE did this in front of the cameras, it was a PR move. Risk an illegal seizure and return with apologies but gain public support. Good move CN you just helped Portantino.

HowardW56
05-22-2012, 6:57 AM
Cue Twilight Zone theme

NzlG28B-R8Y

RazzB7
05-22-2012, 6:59 AM
"How do you shoot yourself in the foot with an unloaded weapon?"

SanPedroShooter
05-22-2012, 7:02 AM
CN said his firearm was taken illegally. It appears it was. If LE did this in front of the cameras, it was a PR move. Risk an illegal seizure and return with apologies but gain public support. Good move CN you just helped Portantino.

Well he says a lot of things... But maybe he has a point. What happens when you have a lawfully owned and carried gun in a gun free zone, not a federal or state one, in this case a city park (this may be a whole nother issue) ? Dont they just ask you to leave? If you dont leave, you are tresspasing. Do they seize your gun? They did in this case....

taperxz
05-22-2012, 7:06 AM
Well he says a lot of things... But maybe he has a point. What happens when you have a lawfully owned and carried gun in a gun free zone (not a federal or state one) in this case a city park? Dont they just ask you to leave? If you dont leave, you are tresspasing. Do they seize your gun? They did in this case....

City Park? Is not a sensitive place. Regardless of how RB spins it. Maybe CN is playing with Gene on this one. Gene is plaintiff v San Mateo county on parks.

Oh well CN is true to form on this one. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.:rolleyes:

Mrbroom
05-22-2012, 7:08 AM
Firearm was siezed because he went into Veterans Park. RB city ordinance says "no firearms in the park". I believe Mike Webb (RB City Attorney) gave up on the peir as a park issue.. But not sure on that..

gun toting monkeyboy
05-22-2012, 7:20 AM
In this one, he may have a case. But that doesn't make him any less of a tool. And one that is a danger to the long-term objectives that the people at CGF and SAF have been working towards for years. All because he is a clueless asshat with delussions of grandure.

-Mb

Decoligny
05-22-2012, 7:21 AM
CN is showing his vast accumulation of legal knowledge. :rolleyes:

He taped a round of ammunition to his stock in order to "violate the state law".

He obviously doesn't know about the concept of case law.

Specifically: People v. Clark (1996) which clearly declares that it is legal to have ammuntion attached to the firearm, just not in a position from which the ammuntion can be fired.

SanPedroShooter
05-22-2012, 8:04 AM
CN is showing his vast accumulation of legal knowledge. :rolleyes:

He taped a round of ammunition to his stock in order to "violate the state law".

He obviously doesn't know about the concept of case law.

Specifically: People v. Clark (1996) which clearly declares that it is legal to have ammuntion attached to the firearm, just not in a position from which the ammuntion can be fired.

I didnt really get that either... Maybe he never read People v Clark?

He should have loaded the damn thing if he wants to get arrested for LOC.... Better yet, why not a handgun?

Maybe he is playing around with the various vague and arbritrary California gun laws. However, I still dont belive he knows what he is doing.

Its amazing how easy it is to make waves on this issue in California, I am suprised it doesnt happen more often.

CitaDeL
05-22-2012, 8:27 AM
Let's count the mistakes made

1) Confusing transport of an unloaded firearm with the Constitutional meaning of 'bear'. This misunderstanding has led to the series of missteps that follow.
2) Suing in Federal court without having first obtained standing.
3) Believing that one can 'create' standing after filing a lawsuit by instigating an arrest that isn't wholly related to the previous complaint.
4) Announcing through press releases and invitations to city leaders, attorneys, police, and state legislators that you intend on violating the law at a particular location, date and time.
5) Following up this announcement by showing up to walk around with an unloaded shotgun that is not a violation of the law.

The only concievable win for CN is suing for the forth amendment seizure of his property- which has nothing to do with the second amendment.

CitaDeL
05-22-2012, 8:29 AM
He should have loaded the damn thing if he wants to get arrested for LOC.... Better yet, why not a handgun?

This^ is what he needed to do to obtain standing before he decided to file his lawsuit.

SanPedroShooter
05-22-2012, 8:31 AM
Let's count the mistakes made

1) Confusing transport of an unloaded firearm with the Constitutional meaning of 'bear'. This misunderstanding has led to the series of missteps that follow.
2) Suing in Federal court without having first obtained standing.
3) Believing that one can 'create' standing after filing a lawsuit by instigating an arrest that isn't wholly related to the previous complaint.
4) Announcing through press releases and invitations to city leaders, attorneys, police, and state legislators that you intend on violating the law at a particular location, date and time.
5) Following up this announcement by showing up to walk around with an unloaded shotgun that is not a violation of the law.

The only concievable win for CN is suing for the forth amendment seizure of his property- which has nothing to do with the second amendment.

Good analysis. I am still wondering, besides a tangenital relationship, what toting an unloaded gun has to do with the Second Amendment? It seems like at best, a 1A issue to me. The whole thing is so confused.

Number 5 is really the puzzling part to me. Does he argue that 'bear' in 'keep and bear' means being able to carry an unloaded gun? I would think he would at least load the thing. Of course, then he would be another criminal defendant trying to use the 2A as a shield for their bad behavior.... I get the feeling this guy has no idea what he is doing, he proves it over and over.

Barbarossa
05-22-2012, 8:33 AM
I don't know what "CN" is, but I assume it stands for Chuck Norris.

CN Doesn't need a gun to open carry, he has 3 fists!

CitaDeL
05-22-2012, 8:40 AM
Good analysis. I am still wondering, besides a tangenital relationship, what toting an unloaded gun has to do with the Second Amendment? It seems like at best, a 1A issue to me. The whole thing is so confused.

An unloaded gun for the lack of a better description is an empty metal tube or a 'non-working' mechanism. Constitutional 'bear' is only applicable to arms ready for use in case of confrontation. A knife, in this instance, is more an 'arm' than an empty shot gun.

All this boils down to when all is said and done, is a 1st and 4th amendment conflict. This has no 2nd amendment implications... besides stirring up the very legislators who voted to enact 26350 (AB144).

CBruce
05-22-2012, 8:41 AM
1) Confusing transport of an unloaded firearm with the Constitutional meaning of 'bear'. This misunderstanding has led to the series of missteps that follow.

What is the Constitutional meaning of 'bear'?

Alan Block
05-22-2012, 9:02 AM
I had hopes of strolling around the July 4th celebration in M Viejo in my Minute Man outfit. Now looks like it might have to be a Minute Maid outfit.

CitaDeL
05-22-2012, 9:11 AM
What is the Constitutional meaning of 'bear'?

Do you think it means possessing and transporting a length of pipe or a non-functional mechanism while conducting 1st amendment protected activities?

FalconLair
05-22-2012, 9:12 AM
What is the Constitutional meaning of 'bear'?

ya they used words like that back in them 1800's lol...i always interpreted it as "to have upon ones person, or in possession of, to keep" everything is open to interpretation thus we have even challenges of the words.

Decoligny
05-22-2012, 11:21 AM
I don't know what "CN" is, but I assume it stands for Chuck Norris.

CN Doesn't need a gun to open carry, he has 3 fists!

CN in this case is referring to Charles Nichols.

gun toting monkeyboy
05-22-2012, 12:08 PM
Maybe he never read People v Clark?



He can read?

OleCuss
05-22-2012, 1:02 PM
CN in this case is referring to Charles Nichols.

Who merely thinks he is Chuck Norris.



But in this case, CN might also stand for Cloudy Noggin?

bon homme richard
05-22-2012, 5:00 PM
An unloaded gun for the lack of a better description is an empty metal tube or a 'non-working' mechanism. Constitutional 'bear' is only applicable to arms ready for use in case of confrontation. A knife, in this instance, is more an 'arm' than an empty shot gun.

All this boils down to when all is said and done, is a 1st and 4th amendment conflict. This has no 2nd amendment implications... besides stirring up the very legislators who voted to enact 26350 (AB144).

First, I'm not sure what People v. Clark has to do with this situation. The cases are completely distinguishable. Clark was a parolee subject to remand to jail for possession of a loaded firearm. Mr. Nichols was conducting civil disobedience of the city ordinance banning guns in the park, not the ban on openly carrying a handgun, that is, Penal Code Sec. 26350 (A.B.144, 10/9/2011, Portantino). You may be right that he was confusedly thinking of the state law when responding to the newsies, but he did in fact violate the city ordinance.

Second, the “constitutional meaning of ‘bear’ does not require that the firearm be loaded. As the Supreme Court defined “bear” in D.C. v. Heller,

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment… indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.”
Assuming that Justice Scalia was serious in using Ginsberg’s definition, and not just hoisting her on her own petard, I don’t see that having rounds taped to the stock, or in a magazine pouch or belt loop, for that matter, renders the person unarmed or unready, or changes his purpose. I don’t know about you, but if I were carrying a pistol openly, in a belt holster, with a magazine or two in a pouch on the belt, I would consider myself to be “bearing arms,” and I’m sure the courts would as well.

Third, Mr. Nichols was cited and his firearm seized under the provisions of the ordinance. That certainly sounds like an infringement of his right to “bear arms” to me. Why would he not have standing to claim violation of his Second Amendment rights?

Finally, you also state that there is no Second Amendment challenge to Penal Code Sec. 26350, because it bans carrying of an unloaded [hand]gun, which you define as “an empty metal tube or a ‘non-working’ mechanism,” as opposed to a “[fire]arm.” Is that your position? Is that CGF’s position?

Because I think 26350 is as clear a violation of the Second Amendment as has ever been enacted in this country, and I certainly hope someone is doing something about it.

HighLander51
05-22-2012, 5:38 PM
Well, first of all, IT'S A BREAK OPEN SHOTGUN!!! NOT A RIFLE!!!! So this IDIOT DOES NOT EVEN KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. WTF. 1:51 into the vid, check it.

H&R break open 12 gage, just like this

http://www.californiavtxriders.com/phpBB3/gallery/image35475.jpg

CitaDeL
05-22-2012, 5:57 PM
First, I'm not sure what People v. Clark has to do with this situation. The cases are completely distinguishable. Clark was a parolee subject to remand to jail for possession of a loaded firearm. Mr. Nichols was conducting civil disobedience of the city ordinance banning guns in the park, not the ban on openly carrying a handgun, that is, Penal Code Sec. 26350 (A.B.144, 10/9/2011, Portantino). You may be right that he was confusedly thinking of the state law when responding to the newsies, but he did in fact violate the city ordinance.

Second, the “constitutional meaning of ‘bear’ does not require that the firearm be loaded. As the Supreme Court defined “bear” in D.C. v. Heller,

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment… indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.”
Assuming that Justice Scalia was serious in using Ginsberg’s definition, and not just hoisting her on her own petard, I don’t see that having rounds taped to the stock, or in a magazine pouch or belt loop, for that matter, renders the person unarmed or unready, or changes his purpose. I don’t know about you, but if I were carrying a pistol openly, in a belt holster, with a magazine or two in a pouch on the belt, I would consider myself to be “bearing arms,” and I’m sure the courts would as well.

Third, Mr. Nichols was cited and his firearm seized under the provisions of the ordinance. That certainly sounds like an infringement of his right to “bear arms” to me. Why would he not have standing to claim violation of his Second Amendment rights?

Finally, you also state that there is no Second Amendment challenge to Penal Code Sec. 26350, because it bans carrying of an unloaded [hand]gun, which you define as “an empty metal tube or a ‘non-working’ mechanism,” as opposed to a “[fire]arm.” Is that your position? Is that CGF’s position?

Because I think 26350 is as clear a violation of the Second Amendment as has ever been enacted in this country, and I certainly hope someone is doing something about it.

All opinions stated in any of my posts are solely my own.

26350 is an anachorism focused solely on the activities of a minority of California gun activists who instigated a legislative response by making a show of our limited and natural inclination to be armed. If the firearm is not functional for the purposes of self defense, the demonstration does not rise to the level of 2nd amendment activity. 1st amendment activities are regulated in similar fashion with impositions on time, volume, and content... so now you are saying that one may not impose regulations on when and where someone will exhibit a firearm in public as a 1st amendment protest?

It is either a loaded gun for protection (2A) or it is a empty protest sign (1A). Pick one. Any efforts to construe one for the other will be polarized by the court following established precedent.

Clark is completely applicable to your act of 'civil disobedience'. If the ammunition is not in a position to be fired, the firearm is 'not loaded'. This is, among those who have followed the California open carry movement, an elementary legal discussion- explicitly proven by dozens of police encounters, including my own. If you really wanted to challenge 12031, you would have chambered a round instead of pussing out with an unloaded shotgun. If you believe in the 2A, it should be for a functional firearm that is ready for immediate employment not a pipe with a polished wooden handle.

All that carrying an empty gun has created in this instance, is a new and SEPERATE challenge to a municipal prohibition on firearms. The seizure is purely a 4th amendment issue- RBPD should have cited you and released you with your property with a warning not to return with your shotgun. This has done NOTHING to establish standing to the case you already filed in Federal court. That wouldnt happen until you carried a loaded firearm in a incorporated city or a discharge prohibited area and got yourself hooked up and charged.

But we know now, that few (certainly not Charles Nichols), possess such conviction of their principles.

BigDogatPlay
05-22-2012, 8:54 PM
CN has to stand before a judge for open carrying a long arm that was illegally taken from him. Unless he was in a GFSZ, he has a case.

I would submit that his firearm was seized lawfully as evidence based on the following:

* City of Redondo Beach has an ordinance which says carrying firearms in city parks by those not exempt is a misdemeanor.
* RBPD on viewed CN within the confines of a city park and carrying a firearm... that would satisfy the elements of the crime as called out in the ordinance.
* RBPD seized the instrumentality of the alleged crime as evidence, which authority they get from the California Constitution at the highest level.
* By the on camera statements of the officer CN will "be hearing from our city attorney", which in my training and experience means that RBPD is going to request a complaint from the city attorney's office on the misdemeanor ordinance violation.

No illegal seizure there, IMO. The actions of the officers are easily within good faith as they didn't arrest, but rather submitted to higher authority for a determination. And I am pretty certain the action as it played out does absolutely nothing for CN's currently dismissed with leave to amend federal civil rights filing.

While it might be argued that 1A and 2A protections preclude the ordinance, that is going to need to be litigated. If that is what his ultimate aim is, then fine, but he already was dismissed once and no constitutional protection is an absolute. There is abundant case law on that.

Perhaps CN just has nothing better to do?

Where that takes us, helps us or hurts us? I have no idea at this point.

Thankfully, it takes CN out of public view, of the media anyway. There is no public arrest and perp walk, which is what CN wanted apparently, and which would have attracted that much more bad press to him and, by association, our cause. It gives the city attorney a year to decide whether or not to file on him and by that point CN, no matter what is decided, will be a distant memory to all but the few faithful supporters he has.

It must really suck to get outsmarted by a bunch of local cops.... because CN sure was. Now, his patriotic bent aside, hopefully he will hang it up for a while and quit tilting at windmills.

Decoligny
05-22-2012, 9:53 PM
First, I'm not sure what People v. Clark has to do with this situation.

People v. Clark was brought up simply because CN stated clearly that he taped ammunition to his firearm in violation of state law. He stated that CA law prohibited ammunition from being attached to a firearm. He even erroneously stated that the law didn't even specify that it had to be ammunition for that firearm.

This clearly indicates that CN doesn't have a clue when it comes to the laws involved in carrying a firearm in CA.

hoffmang
05-22-2012, 9:58 PM
City Park? Is not a sensitive place. Regardless of how RB spins it. Maybe CN is playing with Gene on this one. Gene is plaintiff v San Mateo county on parks.

Oh well CN is true to form on this one. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.:rolleyes:

One critical difference. One of us has a license to carry issued pursuant to the penal code which has specific preemption via the government code and one... does not.

-Gene

bon homme richard
05-23-2012, 12:34 AM
All opinions stated in any of my posts are solely my own.

26350 is an anachorism focused solely on the activities of a minority of California gun activists who instigated a legislative response by making a show of our limited and natural inclination to be armed. If the firearm is not functional for the purposes of self defense, the demonstration does not rise to the level of 2nd amendment activity. 1st amendment activities are regulated in similar fashion with impositions on time, volume, and content... so now you are saying that one may not impose regulations on when and where someone will exhibit a firearm in public as a 1st amendment protest?

It is either a loaded gun for protection (2A) or it is a empty protest sign (1A). Pick one. Any efforts to construe one for the other will be polarized by the court following established precedent.

Clark is completely applicable to your act of 'civil disobedience'. If the ammunition is not in a position to be fired, the firearm is 'not loaded'. This is, among those who have followed the California open carry movement, an elementary legal discussion- explicitly proven by dozens of police encounters, including my own. If you really wanted to challenge 12031, you would have chambered a round instead of pussing out with an unloaded shotgun. If you believe in the 2A, it should be for a functional firearm that is ready for immediate employment not a pipe with a polished wooden handle.



As I said, I've just started reviewing the gun laws and don't consider myself an expert by any means. However, based on 35 years experience in reading and interpreting statutes and cases, I'll just say I disagree as to the meaning of "bear arms" and as to whether infringement of the right to carry an unloaded firearm implicates the Second Amendment.

If I understand you correctly, a soldier carrying a firearm which is not loaded, but for which he is carrying loaded magazines, is not "bearing arms." No court would ever uphold such an argument.

Or are you saying that since Mr. Nichols did not have the "purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person,” but was carrying his firearm for the purpose of making a public protest, he was not "bearing arms?" Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, a soldier marching in a parade with a loaded rifle would not be "bearing arms," as he doesn't have the required purpose. Although that argument has the superficial support of quoting Justice Ginsburg literally, I don't think there's any chance that a court would hold the parading soldier was not "bearing arms."

If there are cases to the contrary, I would appreciate it if you would point me to them.

hoffmang
05-23-2012, 12:52 AM
If I understand you correctly, a soldier carrying a firearm which is not loaded, but for which he is carrying loaded magazines, is not "bearing arms." No court would ever uphold such an argument.

That's an awfully nice unbacked assertion so I'll answer it similarly unbacked since all we really have is Heller on this issue.

The right is to bear arms. At a minimum, bearing arms means having a loaded operable firearm at hand. It may also, further from the core, include bearing an unloaded firearm with magazines full of rounds on the person. However, that's outside the very core of the right which is to carry a loaded and ready arm.

In today's early jurisprudence, it's far smarter to focus on the core than the periphery.

-Gene

CitaDeL
05-23-2012, 8:16 AM
People v. Clark was brought up simply because CN stated clearly that he taped ammunition to his firearm in violation of state law. He stated that CA law prohibited ammunition from being attached to a firearm. He even erroneously stated that the law didn't even specify that it had to be ammunition for that firearm.

This clearly indicates that CN doesn't have a clue when it comes to the laws involved in carrying a firearm in CA.

This^ Which unarguably is the foremost reason he should not be at the forefront of media attention as a second amendment proponent. I am reminded of his interview with ReasonTV and the number of times he either mispoke or was completely wrong about California gun law.

As I said, I've just started reviewing the gun laws and don't consider myself an expert by any means. However, based on 35 years experience in reading and interpreting statutes and cases, I'll just say I disagree as to the meaning of "bear arms" and as to whether infringement of the right to carry an unloaded firearm implicates the Second Amendment.

The bolded is a good reason one should ask more questions than be inclined to provide answers. It is also suspect in that you seem to be defending actions of those who have a similar (identical) understanding of gun laws and the second amendment as they are applied in California.

What is most striking to me in the above post is in spite of having 35 years of interpreting statutes (this presumably would make you about 60), you have just now begun reviewing gun law. The only conclusion I can arrive at is that you spent your life employed in tax law, as that is the only way one might spend more than a decade searching the statutes and never come across a prohibition on possessing or carrying a gun.

This prospect does not make me like you more- but I do appreciate a willingness to learn.


In today's early jurisprudence, it's far smarter to focus on the core than the periphery.

-Gene

Thank you Gene, for providing me my daily affirmation.

taperxz
05-23-2012, 8:34 AM
One critical difference. One of us has a license to carry issued pursuant to the penal code which has specific preemption via the government code and one... does not.

-Gene

I considered the LTC in your case.

Just sayin, CN reads this forum and we all know that. We are also aware of his profound infatuation with you also:D

Purposely, in a park, with a firearm? Writings on the wall. As always, just my wild speculation:TFH:

Personmans
05-23-2012, 9:16 AM
If I understand you correctly, a soldier carrying a firearm which is not loaded, but for which he is carrying loaded magazines, is not "bearing arms." No court would ever uphold such an argument.

Or are you saying that since Mr. Nichols did not have the "purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person,” but was carrying his firearm for the purpose of making a public protest, he was not "bearing arms?" Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, a soldier marching in a parade with a loaded rifle would not be "bearing arms," as he doesn't have the required purpose. Although that argument has the superficial support of quoting Justice Ginsburg literally, I don't think there's any chance that a court would hold the parading soldier was not "bearing arms."


If you consider the post as pertaining specifically to this case, neither of your definitions are correct.

My understanding is that you are "bearing arms" if:
1) You have a weapon that is loaded.
2) You have a weapon + loaded magazines (for that weapon) readily available (not locked up)
3) You have a weapon + ammunition (for that weapon) readily available (not locked up)

In this case CN had the wrong type of ammunition taped to the stock, which could still be considered readily available, but being incorrect ammunition makes this stunt an example of not "bearing arms".

As for the underlined portion, intent is irrelevant here, you are either bearing arms which are loaded or ready to be loaded or you are not. CN was not.

This begs the question, why not walk around with an unloaded handgun w/o ammunition?
would make it a misdemeanor with specified penalties to openly carry an exposed handgun in a public place or public street, as specified, if the person at the same time possesses ammunition capable of being discharged from the handgun

taperxz
05-23-2012, 9:43 AM
If you consider the post as pertaining specifically to this case, neither of your definitions are correct.

My understanding is that you are "bearing arms" if:
1) You have a weapon that is loaded.
2) You have a weapon + loaded magazines (for that weapon) readily available (not locked up)
3) You have a weapon + ammunition (for that weapon) readily available (not locked up)

In this case CN had the wrong type of ammunition taped to the stock, which could still be considered readily available, but being incorrect ammunition makes this stunt an example of not "bearing arms".

As for the underlined portion, intent is irrelevant here, you are either bearing arms which are loaded or ready to be loaded or you are not. CN was not.

This begs the question, why not walk around with an unloaded handgun w/o ammunition?

Not really true in this state. In CA bearing arms is bearing regardless of the status of the firearm.

Decoligny
05-23-2012, 12:22 PM
Not really true in this state. In CA bearing arms is bearing regardless of the status of the firearm.

The problem with your statement is that CN is not working inside the CA court system. He is working his case through the Federal System. CAs obtuse view on what "bearing arms" is does not play in regards to this case.

bon homme richard
05-23-2012, 2:15 PM
That's an awfully nice unbacked assertion so I'll answer it similarly unbacked since all we really have is Heller on this issue.

The right is to bear arms. At a minimum, bearing arms means having a loaded operable firearm at hand. It may also, further from the core, include bearing an unloaded firearm with magazines full of rounds on the person. However, that's outside the very core of the right which is to carry a loaded and ready arm.

In today's early jurisprudence, it's far smarter to focus on the core than the periphery.

-Gene

May I take it from your answer that CGF is not going to challenge Penal Code Sec. 26350, because you have hopes of overturning the ban on carrying a loaded firearm?

MindBuilder
05-23-2012, 2:22 PM
I think if you have a gun and ammo that you would be considered to be bearing arms. We already have a federal judge from I think the San Diego Peruta case saying that we don't need a concealed carry permit because our Second Amendment right to bear arms is satisfied by the (until recent) legality of unloaded open carry. In fact I think there were two other judges that echoed that.

Many people on this and other forums have argued that unloaded open carry was not just for protest but for practical self defense. They seem to feel that the deterrence value and the value for situations where they have time to load up, outweigh the problems of quick ambush situations where there is not enough time to load. Regardless of whether they are right or foolish, they are still clearly bearing arms for self defense. It is also likely that many gun owners carry unloaded guns and ammo in their cars for self protection, and therefore are bearing arms in their cars.

Also, California law considers a gun to be loaded if the carrier is engaged in criminal activity and has ammo on his person but not in the gun. It seems clear that a criminal on the prowl for victims is still bearing arms even if his magazine is just outside his gun.

If you try to carry an unloaded handgun and ammunition into a courtroom, will the judge think you were not bearing arms into the courtroom?

If a soldier is being flown to a battle zone in a transport plane, he might be required to have his rifle and other weapons unloaded until close to the drop zone, for the safety of the plane. It seems clear the soldiers would still be bearing arms to battle even while their guns were unloaded.

If soldier is hiking up a road with an anti-tank mine in his backpack to deploy where his commander has ordered, is he not bearing arms if he didn't screw in the detonator yet, and thus the device is in a nonfuctional dissasembled state?

If one solder is carrying a mortar and his partner is carrying the projectiles, are neither bearing arms because neither have ammunition loaded into a weapon?

Is an archer not bearing arms because all his arrows are still in the quiver?

bon homme richard
05-23-2012, 2:31 PM
The bolded is a good reason one should ask more questions than be inclined to provide answers. It is also suspect in that you seem to be defending actions of those who have a similar (identical) understanding of gun laws and the second amendment as they are applied in California.

What is most striking to me in the above post is in spite of having 35 years of interpreting statutes (this presumably would make you about 60), you have just now begun reviewing gun law. The only conclusion I can arrive at is that you spent your life employed in tax law, as that is the only way one might spend more than a decade searching the statutes and never come across a prohibition on possessing or carrying a gun.

This prospect does not make me like you more- but I do appreciate a willingness to learn.



You are very astute, sir. I salute you!

I am very interested in learning gun law -- tax law gets a little boring after 35 years! I don't know why you would dislike me, I don't even know you. I certainly want to know what your position is on CA gun laws before I decide whether I disagree with you, let alone dislike you. The same goes for Mr. Nichols' position.

BTW, the Beverly Hills Bar Association is having a seminar Wednesday evening, May 30, on the right to bear arms. I will report on whether there was more than one person there who believes the 2nd amendment has any meaning.

SanPedroShooter
05-23-2012, 2:36 PM
You are very astute, sir. I salute you!

I am very interested in learning gun law -- tax law gets a little boring after 35 years! I don't know why you would dislike me, I don't even know you. I certainly want to know what your position is on CA gun laws before I decide whether I disagree with you, let alone dislike you. The same goes for Mr. Nichols' position.

BTW, the Beverly Hills Bar Association is having a seminar Wednesday evening, May 30, on the right to bear arms. I will report on whether there was more than one person there who believes the 2nd amendment has any meaning.

I am interested in what happens at the meeting if no one else is. I think I can guess what you are going to hear though.

CitaDeL
05-23-2012, 4:09 PM
You are very astute, sir. I salute you!

I am very interested in learning gun law -- tax law gets a little boring after 35 years! I don't know why you would dislike me, I don't even know you. I certainly want to know what your position is on CA gun laws before I decide whether I disagree with you, let alone dislike you. The same goes for Mr. Nichols' position.

BTW, the Beverly Hills Bar Association is having a seminar Wednesday evening, May 30, on the right to bear arms. I will report on whether there was more than one person there who believes the 2nd amendment has any meaning.

I never indicated that I dislike you. But differences of 2A philosophy and tactics with Nichols are impossible to reconcile (mainly because of his unwillingness to participate in a concerted and reasonable strategy).

Meplat
05-23-2012, 4:30 PM
What is the Constitutional meaning of 'bear'?

It’s something you can’t let your dogs chase.

Meplat
05-23-2012, 4:37 PM
Do you think it means possessing and transporting a length of pipe or a non-functional mechanism while conducting 1st amendment protected activities?

Well, if his intent was to use it as a weapon, loaded or not, he would be “bearing” an “arm”; Just not a "firearm".