Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-21-2016, 12:41 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,404
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Nichols Vs. Brown update...

I saw on the opencarry blog that Nichols brief to the 9th was due yesterday, but didn't see a link.. Also, I'm noticing that there isn't a lot of talk on here about this case..

It seems to me a win for Nichols would virtually force CA to embrace Shall Issue, so why no excitement about this case?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-21-2016, 12:46 PM
dustoff31 dustoff31 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,220
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Maybe because it's being heard in the 9th circuit and everyone pretty much knows how it will end?
__________________
"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." - Westbrook Pegler
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-21-2016, 12:59 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,379
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Don't know if this page is still current: http://michellawyers.com/nichols-v-harris/
__________________
The Legislature is in recess. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-21-2016, 1:01 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,268
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
I saw on the opencarry blog that Nichols brief to the 9th was due yesterday, but didn't see a link.. Also, I'm noticing that there isn't a lot of talk on here about this case..

It seems to me a win for Nichols would virtually force CA to embrace Shall Issue, so why no excitement about this case?
An OC win would be a good thing. But not as good as "Shall Issue". Two seperate things.

The Liberal Pols and the Judges on the Ninth that serve them have an agenda of "divide and conquer". They have divided OC and CC as two serperate things under the Keep and Bear Clause of the 2A. Supplementing their ongoing, "Death of A Thousand Cuts" program.

So an OC win will likely mean death to Shall Issue as far as the Ninth and the state of Commyfornia is concerned.

JM2c
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-21-2016, 1:07 PM
Frisco3Gun's Avatar
Frisco3Gun Frisco3Gun is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Yay Area
Posts: 593
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

I still blame Charles Nichols for the Peruta decision. If he hadn't gone all history major in his brief, I think we'd have shall issue statewide.
__________________
God may have made men, but Samuel Colt made them equal.

WTB: Colt Detective Special, AMT Hardballer, all-INOX Beretta 92FS, Tikka T3 Sporter, pre-64 Winchester Model 70, HK MP5-A5 22LR

Cashback options for your Brownells, Cabelas, eBay, Amazon purchases..
Ebates Referral - $10 for you and $10 for me.
Active Junky (AJ) Referral - $10 for you and $10 for me.
Swagbucks too!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-21-2016, 1:07 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,966
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
An OC win would be a good thing. But not as good as "Shall Issue". Two seperate things.
A proper OC win would lead to Shall Issue after months of OC meetings at Berkeley coffee shops to annoy the sensibilities of the local hippies.

That's why we won't get OC. We either get the "two step analysis" where "carry is not the core of the right, therefore intermediate scrutiny rational basis," or we get an "OC is allowed as long as you're in the boonies." We might even get an outright dishonest: "states can choose concealed carry over open carry and CA has chosen concealed carry (but, but, but, Peruta... we are not addressing Peruta here.)
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-21-2016, 1:36 PM
randomBytes's Avatar
randomBytes randomBytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,169
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

There is no way to read the en banc peruta ruling and have any expectation that an honest ruling will happen here.
They will say "CC is available" you lose. History, constitution, BOR all have nothing to do with it.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-21-2016, 1:51 PM
ojisan's Avatar
ojisan ojisan is online now
Agent 86
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 10,218
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
A proper OC win would lead to Shall Issue after months of OC meetings at Berkeley coffee shops to annoy the sensibilities of the local hippies.

That's why we won't get OC. We either get the "two step analysis" where "carry is not the core of the right, therefore intermediate scrutiny rational basis," or we get an "OC is allowed as long as you're in the boonies." We might even get an outright dishonest: "states can choose concealed carry over open carry and CA has chosen concealed carry (but, but, but, Peruta... we are not addressing Peruta here.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomBytes View Post
There is no way to read the en banc peruta ruling and have any expectation that an honest ruling will happen here.
They will say "CC is available" you lose. History, constitution, BOR all have nothing to do with it.
Yup.
It's a sad state of affairs.

(IVC, I presume you mean shall issue CCW)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-21-2016, 5:35 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,337
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
Also, I'm noticing that there isn't a lot of talk on here about this case..

It seems to me a win for Nichols would virtually force CA to embrace Shall Issue, so why no excitement about this case?
Because Nichols is asking/has asked CA9 to hold his case until Peruta is finalized. If Peruta goes full court en banc and then to SCOTUS, that means Nichols won't even restart for ~3 years....

Even if full court en banc is denied and cert is denied, we're talking ~1 more year until anything moves in Nichols.

IOW, Nichols is on the "sandwich and nap" track.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

220+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 07-21-2016 at 5:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-21-2016, 6:08 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,789
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Because Nichols is asking/has asked CA9 to hold his case until Peruta is finalized. If Peruta goes full court en banc and then to SCOTUS, that means Nichols won't even restart for ~3 years....

Even if full court en banc is denied and cert is denied, we're talking ~1 more year until anything moves in Nichols.

IOW, Nichols is on the "sandwich and nap" track.
Paladin, you really need to vary things up.

If you're going to continue to post "sandwich and a nap",

you need to post Sandwich and a Nap
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-21-2016, 6:13 PM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frisco3Gun View Post
I still blame Charles Nichols for the Peruta decision. If he hadn't gone all history major in his brief, I think we'd have shall issue statewide.
This is unfair and incorrect.

Mr. Nichols is not very likeable, and Im not convinced he knows what he is doing or why, but Peruta is absolutely not his fault in any way.

One thing that makes no sense is Mr. Nichols asking for his case to be stayed. He should be seeking a full decision asap.

He seeks very specific relief that the Peruta panel purposefully (and in my view improperly) ignored. He wants only loaded open carry which is flatly banned, no real exceptions. I quicky scanned his latest motion for a stay and he is arguing that the contents of his opening brief depend upon the final outcome of Peruta. Maybe I am just too thick to understand, but I thought Nichols entire argument was basically "that Peruta case was wrong because concealed carry can never be the right."

If I understand Mr. Nichols arguments correctly, then it would appearthe outcome of Peruta is totally irrelevant to his demand for loaded open carry.

Why he wants a stay is hard to fathom. But the Peruta decision is not in any way his fault or his doing in my opinion, and I dont see what the Peruta decision has to do with his loaded open carry claim?

Last edited by Elgatodeacero; 07-21-2016 at 6:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-21-2016, 6:47 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,789
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
This is unfair and incorrect.

Mr. Nichols is not very likeable, and Im not convinced he knows what he is doing or why, but Peruta is absolutely not his fault in any way.

One thing that makes no sense is Mr. Nichols asking for his case to be stayed. He should be seeking a full decision asap.

He seeks very specific relief that the Peruta panel purposefully (and in my view improperly) ignored. He wants only loaded open carry which is flatly banned, no real exceptions. I quicky scanned his latest motion for a stay and he is arguing that the contents of his opening brief depend upon the final outcome of Peruta. Maybe I am just too thick to understand, but I thought Nichols entire argument was basically "that Peruta case was wrong because concealed carry can never be the right."

If I understand Mr. Nichols arguments correctly, then it would appearthe outcome of Peruta is totally irrelevant to his demand for loaded open carry.

Why he wants a stay is hard to fathom. But the Peruta decision is not in any way his fault or his doing in my opinion, and I dont see what the Peruta decision has to do with his loaded open carry claim?
I think he would agree that Peruta isn't relevant to his case, and I would agree, if Frisco REALLY thinks that Nichols dug up history that the committed anti-gun 9th wouldn't, or couldn't, over the length of time the en banc panel took, well, he really thinks so little of the 9th circuit I'm surprised he thinks it can render any good decisions.

I think Nichols is actually fairly clever for asking for his case to be held pending Peruta. If not, then the courts could craft, in one fell swoop, an explanation to deny ALL carry cases, open or concealed, without telegraphing HOW ahead of time. That gives the courts the advantage.

By forcing them to do it piecemeal, they can't craft a grand strategy, but rather a piecemeal one, including increasing the chances of errors on the court's side.

There's only a marginal time gain to be had by not staying pending Peruta; and further, if courts really want to drag things out, there's nothing we can do.

So if you don't stay Nichols... the case can be delayed indefinitely, all dependent on if the courts want to.

If you DO stay it, Nichols will wait for a long-winded case that courts can delay indefinitely, all dependent on if the courts want to, THEN, it can be delayed indefinitely, all dependent on if the courts want to.

Honestly, there's not much of a difference- it all depends on the courts. All Nichols is doing is taking their ability to silence us in one fell swoop, with a grand overarching legal strategy to frustrate us, and make them fight us in a less organized way, which makes it look a lot worse.

Think about it: if Nichols had been decided along with Peruta, and the courts said, "NO CARRY IS A RIGHT"-

How much better off would we be?

As is, the ruling is "CONCEALED IS NOT A RIGHT; WHO KNOWS ABOUT OPEN CARRY"

If they THEN decide, "WE SAID CONCEALED IS NOT A RIGHT AND WHO KNOWS ABOUT OPEN CARRY, BUT NOW THAT WE'RE ASKED- NO CARRY IS THE RIGHT"

It looks much, much worse.

No benefit.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-21-2016, 8:12 PM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Im sorry, but I do not see the difference in those two outcomes.

Your theory does not make sense to me. The goal is to get the 9th or any court to agree that carrying a loaded gun in some manner is a constitutional right.

If they are going to deny us the "bear arms" then I say make them do so now. I dont think they have the guts, so call the bluff and force them to take a position.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-22-2016, 9:36 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,789
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
Im sorry, but I do not see the difference in those two outcomes.

Your theory does not make sense to me. The goal is to get the 9th or any court to agree that carrying a loaded gun in some manner is a constitutional right.

If they are going to deny us the "bear arms" then I say make them do so now. I dont think they have the guts, so call the bluff and force them to take a position.
Lol.

They totally do.

If the actions of courts seem to still be motivated by good faith in laws, and not a jihad against guns, then I don't know what to tell you, except I'm going to tell "told you so" when I'm proven right.

If you really think they'll give us bear in any useful, liberated form, then congrats on the Alaskan thunderfu(k, or similar strain you must be smoking.

This makes them work harder, and at least gives Nichols some control of the situation, as opposed to everything being the court's timeline and sweeping decision.

Think of it this way. Either you think Nichols is crazy/bad case, which means there's no need to rush a crazy before the courts to get unforced errors and make us lose. If he's crazy, then Peruta/Richards/baker/young is our best hope; and having Nichols stay out is the best possible outcome, so he doesn't screw up the competent lawyers who have much more experience.

If you think that Nichols is right when everyone else is wrong, and his pro-se case is way stronger and the ACTUAL right, then the fact that Nichols is right when literally everyone else is WRONG means that he should be granted deference on this matter because he has been consistently right in everything else despite all odds.

So... If he's an idiot, it's good he's asking his case to be held. If he's a genius, he should be given the benefit of the doubt.

I only understand you thinking he shouldn't stay his case for two reasons:

1. Nichols is a genius who's been right every step of the way despite all odds, but NOW he's broken his track record and is completely wrong

Or

2. You're impatient.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-22-2016, 10:02 AM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I understand your views, but there are additional possibilities beyond what you offered. Patience is not always a virtue, and too mich patience becomes apathy.

The prime evidence the 9th Circuit court doesnt have the guts to explicitly erase "bear arms" from the Constitution is that the Peruta en banc panel went way, way, way out their way to avoid even addressing the issue, and instead just said "concealed carry not a right."

If the court was as set on erasing the right to bear arms as you contend, then a) it makes no difference who brings these cases and no difference when they are brought, and b) they would already have said so in Peruta en banc decision.

Since we have no ability to carry arms in California, we have nothing to lose by forcing the issue and making the Court take an extreme position, and this has best chance of Scotus review.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-22-2016, 10:17 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,789
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
I understand your views, but there are additional possibilities beyond what you offered. Patience is not always a virtue, and too mich patience becomes apathy.
Given that we gave the courts as much time for patience and waiting, I agree with you, but I don't understand why you think rushing Nichols or rushing this gives us any extra advantage. What advantage is there in getting a reply on ALL carry 2 years faster?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
The prime evidence the 9th Circuit court doesnt have the guts to explicitly erase "bear arms" from the Constitution is that the Peruta en banc panel went way, way, way out their way to avoid even addressing the issue, and instead just said "concealed carry not a right."
I read that as they're SCARED.

If Nichols hadn't asked his case to be held, they could easily resolve Peruta/Richards/Baker/Young/Nichols in one fell swoop on THEIR timeline; e.g. right after Hillary is elected, so we're completely screwed.

Nichols holding his case means that likely, the final result will be 4 YEARS from now- meaning possibly ANOTHER president.

That introduces uncertainty and makes THEM worry about the final resolution- as it's no longer on THEIR preferred timeline.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
If the court was as set on erasing the right to bear arms as you contend, then a) it makes no difference who brings these cases and no difference when they are brought, and b) they would already have said so in Peruta en banc decision.
WRONG.

If THEY are bent on erasing the right- not just ruling a certain way, but ERASING it- then unless they're the court of last resort (they're not), they HAVE to worry about the upstream effects.

If they SAID so in Peruta, then Nichols', or Beck's cases, WOULD become NATIONAL vehicles that the NRA AND Trump would make an ELECTION issue saying California has WIPED OUT the right to carry COMPLETELY. This would have unknown effects, and that's undesirable- especially because there'd be a QUICK avenue for redress. People are impatient. Telling them, "Trump will elect SCOTUS and it will have an impact in 4 years"- they're done listening to you. 4 years is too long.

If you tell them "Trump will elect SCOTUS and Courts and have an impact on the 2nd Amendment in his first year in office"- well, you've just got yourself an issue LARGE amounts of people will vote on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
Since we have no ability to carry arms in California, we have nothing to lose by forcing the issue and making the Court take an extreme position, and this has best chance of Scotus review.
Wrong. You DO have the ability to carry in California. You can move, or set up a messed up living situation where you drive to another county/registration status maintained there, and get a permit to carry.

We ALSO have things to lose NATIONALLY, by serving a case of an anti-SCOTUS to gut Heller. That's EXACTLY what Ginsburg said she plans to do.

Just because California is screwed doesn't mean we should selfishly take a large gamble that can screw the rest of the country. That's the exact mindset that makes Californians reviled across the country.

Further, that's the impatient mindset that gave us Heller- which beforehand, there was ambiguity thus uncertainty, which gave our opponents pause and wasn't enforceable.

Peruta could define carry rights as so limited that we lose our sunshine laws, and even in rural counties, it becomes a donation tool like in the rest of corrupt California. Peruta being decided against us at SCOTUS can DESTROY the right, as opposed to making it unknown.

These are very important distinctions.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-23-2016, 1:44 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,337
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Because Nichols is asking/has asked CA9 to hold his case until Peruta is finalized. If Peruta goes full court en banc and then to SCOTUS, that means Nichols won't even restart for ~3 years....

Even if full court en banc is denied and cert is denied in Peruta, we're talking ~1 more year until anything moves in Nichols.

IOW, Nichols is on the "sandwich and nap" track.
Just to be complete: even after Nichols re-starts, allow 1.5 - 2 years for a decision on Nichols by its 3-judge panel. Then allow another 1.5 - 2 years if it goes en banc. Then allow another 1.5 - 2 years if it goes full court en banc. Then allow another 1 - 1.5 years if they ask for cert.

So, if Peruta is finalized (as a loss) in 3 years, we may have another 5.5 - 7.5 years until we win Nichols... We're talking about between New Years Days 2025 and 2027 before we win ANY kind of carry (assuming we'd even win Nichols)!

That calls for a Rip van Winkel-type of a nap. (Wake up looking like: )

Hopefully, the OP now understands why we're not all excited about Nichols. Best to move to a CA county that readily issues CCWs now, rather than wait (unarmed) years for Peruta or Nichols (which we're not guaranteed to win).
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

220+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 08-15-2016 at 11:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-24-2016, 12:46 AM
ColdDeadHands1's Avatar
ColdDeadHands1 ColdDeadHands1 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains
Posts: 3,205
iTrader: 67 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Just to be complete: even after Nichols re-starts, allow 1.5 - 2 years for a decision on Nichols by its 3-judge panel. Then allow another 1.5 - 2 years if it goes en banc. Then allow another 1.5 - 2 years if it goes full court en banc. Then allow another 1 - 1.5 years if they ask for cert.

So, if Peruta is finalized (as a loss) in 3 years, we may have another - 7.5 years until we win Nichols... We're talking about New Years Day, 2027 before we win ANY kind of carry (assuming we'd even win Nichols)!

That calls for a Rip van Winkel-type of a nap. (Wake up looking like: )

Hopefully, the OP now understands why we're not all excited about Nichols. Best to move to a CA county that readily issues CCWs now, rather than wait (unarmed) years for Peruta or Nichols (which we're not guaranteed to win).
You're such a jerk for pointing out this timeline so clearly.
__________________


"Let me guess... This isn't about the alcohol or tobacco?"
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-24-2016, 12:48 AM
ColdDeadHands1's Avatar
ColdDeadHands1 ColdDeadHands1 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains
Posts: 3,205
iTrader: 67 / 100%
Default

And then, after 7.5 brutally long years and 100,000 "Two Weeks" jokes, cert is denied...
__________________


"Let me guess... This isn't about the alcohol or tobacco?"
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-28-2016, 7:43 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,337
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdDeadHands1 View Post
You're such a jerk for pointing out this timeline so clearly.
I thought you guys would appreciate it!

I wasn't predicting that, but just providing a reality check.

Actually, things could end up much worse. Remember Nordyke??? Well, let Nichols go up to, say, full court en banc, and for some reason they say "Retrial! Start over again." Then the whole process starts over again back at square one. Assume 2 years for each step and that adds ANOTHER DECADE to our being legally disarmed in public!

Want it even worse? Nichols is a middle aged overweight (obese?) male with an obvious attitude problem (stress -> high blood pressure?). He's representing himself and if he ever gets to SCOTUS he'll probably REFUSE any help from anyone. Imagine he's granted cert., but keels over before orals and before even submitting briefs. What then? There's no longer an aggrieved party seeking judicial relief (or their legal representative).

Hopefully, if Trump wins and the GOP hold the House & Senate (filibuster proof majority), and they pass National Reciprocity, and then The Donald packs the fed cts with good justices, things will go well and we may win SD = GC in a few years. But why count on the fed courts? Why "put all our (Carry) eggs" in the federal courts basket? We need more CGNers to do what folks in LA, SD and CoCoCo are: organizing (on FB) to make their individual city PD's CoPs issue CCWs and accept SD = GC.

ETA: I think part of the reason we're so disappointed in why Peruta and "carry" is taking so long is because we've focused on how McDonald went from filing in district court to winning in SCOTUS in 2 years. We've forgotten that Heller took 5 1/2 years to win.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

220+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 08-15-2016 at 11:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-05-2016, 9:03 AM
dekul34 dekul34 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
This is unfair and incorrect.

Mr. Nichols is not very likeable, and Im not convinced he knows what he is doing or why, but Peruta is absolutely not his fault in any way.

One thing that makes no sense is Mr. Nichols asking for his case to be stayed. He should be seeking a full decision asap.

He seeks very specific relief that the Peruta panel purposefully (and in my view improperly) ignored. He wants only loaded open carry which is flatly banned, no real exceptions. I quicky scanned his latest motion for a stay and he is arguing that the contents of his opening brief depend upon the final outcome of Peruta. Maybe I am just too thick to understand, but I thought Nichols entire argument was basically "that Peruta case was wrong because concealed carry can never be the right."

If I understand Mr. Nichols arguments correctly, then it would appearthe outcome of Peruta is totally irrelevant to his demand for loaded open carry.

Why he wants a stay is hard to fathom. But the Peruta decision is not in any way his fault or his doing in my opinion, and I dont see what the Peruta decision has to do with his loaded open carry claim?
It's pretty simple in my view. He's waiting for 9th to say re:Peruto that concealed carry is NOT a right, because then they may have to rule in favor of open carry since Scotus has indicated that some form of carry is a right, if not concealed then it has to be open.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-10-2016, 9:59 PM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,586
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frisco3Gun View Post
I still blame Charles Nichols for the Peruta decision. If he hadn't gone all history major in his brief, I think we'd have shall issue statewide.

Could you explain this for me, please? History is history is history. And the history of "and bear," especially the legal history, is actually pretty clear. Mr Nichols didn't tell them anything that they didn't already know.

In my humble opinion, Nichols made a VERY good decision to wait until Peruta was over. The 9th Circus Ruled that CCW is NOT the Protected Right. Which anyone who has read Nunn and Heller could have predicted (and which, BTW, I did predict). But they went full-bore on saying that. Much further than was necessary to kick our asses. But not far enough to have the actual words of Nunn and Heller register on the lawyers representing Mr Peruta.

By making CCW Munchkinland dead, the 9th has actually eased the burden Mr Nichols bears (basically, what dekul34 said). The 2nd does say "Keep AND Bear arms." And there really are only two ways to go when it comes to "and bear." Now that CCW is so thoroughly dead in the 9th., the only remaining, logical option is LOC. Which is nice because that's just what Nunn and Heller state is the Protected Right anyway.

Now, could the 9th find a way to Rule that LOC isn't the Right either? I suppose. I tried sticking my head up my own *** (to replicate the thinking position that most of the "judges" in the 9th MUST use on the job), but even that didn't allow me to see how they could do so. Still, evil, dishonest, agenda-driven people can find a way to all sorts of things. So, I can't rule it out.

The other thing to keep in mind is that Nichols v Brown isn't the only LOC case in the country. There is still Norman v State (AKA Norman v Florida). The lawyers representing Mr Norma have been bright enough to stick to the actual words of Nunn and Heller. They are helped a lot by the Fla Constitution. In addition, the NRA (to my AMAZEMENT) filed an amici Brief that was actually helpful. The timeline is maybe shorter than Nichols v Brown as well. True, it's not in the Federal courts yet, but it's possible that it could go from the Fla Supremes (a court that doesn't take forever to Rule) straight to SCOTUS.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-10-2016, 11:08 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,842
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
Could you explain this for me, please? History is history is history. And the history of "and bear," especially the legal history, is actually pretty clear. Mr Nichols didn't tell them anything that they didn't already know.

In my humble opinion, Nichols made a VERY good decision to wait until Peruta was over. The 9th Circus Ruled that CCW is NOT the Protected Right. Which anyone who has read Nunn and Heller could have predicted (and which, BTW, I did predict). But they went full-bore on saying that. Much further than was necessary to kick our asses. But not far enough to have the actual words of Nunn and Heller register on the lawyers representing Mr Peruta.

By making CCW Munchkinland dead, the 9th has actually eased the burden Mr Nichols bears (basically, what dekul34 said). The 2nd does say "Keep AND Bear arms." And there really are only two ways to go when it comes to "and bear." Now that CCW is so thoroughly dead in the 9th., the only remaining, logical option is LOC. Which is nice because that's just what Nunn and Heller state is the Protected Right anyway.

Now, could the 9th find a way to Rule that LOC isn't the Right either? I suppose. I tried sticking my head up my own *** (to replicate the thinking position that most of the "judges" in the 9th MUST use on the job), but even that didn't allow me to see how they could do so. Still, evil, dishonest, agenda-driven people can find a way to all sorts of things. So, I can't rule it out.

The other thing to keep in mind is that Nichols v Brown isn't the only LOC case in the country. There is still Norman v State (AKA Norman v Florida). The lawyers representing Mr Norma have been bright enough to stick to the actual words of Nunn and Heller. They are helped a lot by the Fla Constitution. In addition, the NRA (to my AMAZEMENT) filed an amici Brief that was actually helpful. The timeline is maybe shorter than Nichols v Brown as well. True, it's not in the Federal courts yet, but it's possible that it could go from the Fla Supremes (a court that doesn't take forever to Rule) straight to SCOTUS.


The Raisuli
Awhile back, I created a thread which I titled similar to the Prince "1999" hit.

I essentially made a prediction that the 9th under pressure from it's own biased judges AND from forces in the back channels of politics (corrupt and seditious politician's, elitist business and corporate interests, certain unions and professions) would find a way to screw us on both ends.

The easiest was the declaration that CCW as a mode was not the protected one. All they did was just maintain the status quo of California as "May Issue". And of course, as noted in this thread, they had plenty of precedent to work with.

Now I'm pretty certain that I speak the sentiments of many Calgunners that they are working diligently on the "Open Carry" side of the equation to screw us as well.

Those same interests I noted earlier that don't want Joe Public and Jane Smith to have a CCW are the exact same interests that do not want Joe Public and Jane Smith to exercise LOC.

So they will try resetting the clock back to the neutered crap we call Unloaded Open Carry.

But those same interests don't like UOC either - they don't want YOU being able to carry a firearm outside the bounds of simple transport, the home or the shooting range PERIOD.

But they have to allow something - and they think that they'll be able to get away with UOC...

...and harass the crap out of those who do try to exercise UOC.

And they're betting SCOTUS will let it slide.

All that legislation that just recently passed and was signed into law wasn't brought up on individual initiative by individual legislators. It was planned and coordinated. That's them setting the additional parameters necessary AHEAD OF TIME when the final screw is driven into us via UOC.

They're insiders playing a chess game who get to stay 2-3 moves ahead with their anti-2A agenda - we're outsiders always in reaction mode.

Only way to stop them and turn the momentum is to vote enough of their behinds onto the pavement to the point that the others that are still in office get the message.

Until then...

2 years...



=8-(
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-10-2016, 11:47 PM
Frisco3Gun's Avatar
Frisco3Gun Frisco3Gun is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Yay Area
Posts: 593
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

For those who asked for clarification, I believe Nichols should have given the 9th the ultimatum in his brief. CC is not protected, but Heller (recent history) affirmed that some form of carry must be allowed.

It would have virtually forced them one way or the other. Right now they are still sitting trying to keep both forms restricted. As mrrabbit pointed out, now they can take their time and drag their feet through the mud, giving us UOC years from now.

Instead, the brief and decision read like a history book focused on 17th century laws instead of recent history.

Others may disagree, but just my .02. If he can get LOC back cleanly and timely, I will eat my words.
__________________
God may have made men, but Samuel Colt made them equal.

WTB: Colt Detective Special, AMT Hardballer, all-INOX Beretta 92FS, Tikka T3 Sporter, pre-64 Winchester Model 70, HK MP5-A5 22LR

Cashback options for your Brownells, Cabelas, eBay, Amazon purchases..
Ebates Referral - $10 for you and $10 for me.
Active Junky (AJ) Referral - $10 for you and $10 for me.
Swagbucks too!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-12-2016, 5:44 PM
danez71's Avatar
danez71 danez71 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 494
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
It's pretty simple in my view. He's waiting for 9th to say re:Peruto that concealed carry is NOT a right, because then they may have to rule in favor of open carry since Scotus has indicated that some form of carry is a right, if not concealed then it has to be open.

1st, CA9 will rule that OC specifically isn't a protected Right - No SCOTUS ruling said that it is. They didn't specify OC or CC.


This should lead to SCOTUS saying to let the States decide which, or both.


Then, push comes to shove in CA, and they'll acknowledge that carrying is a Right subject to 'reasonable' regulation; just like all rights are.


Then the CA Legs will have to decide which one or both.


Then it will be carrying with a 'Shall Issue' permit that still includes a good cause requirement or some other subjective criteria.


And then that battle starts all over again.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-13-2016, 12:29 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,789
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Now I'm pretty certain that I speak the sentiments of many Calgunners that they are working diligently on the "Open Carry" side of the equation to screw us as well.
yes, I agree, they certainly are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Those same interests I noted earlier that don't want Joe Public and Jane Smith to have a CCW are the exact same interests that do not want Joe Public and Jane Smith to exercise LOC.

So they will try resetting the clock back to the neutered crap we call Unloaded Open Carry.
Again, here's where I disagree.

UOC got banned, by name, because the APPEARANCE of a gun is what terrifies people. There IS no way to know without visual inspection whether a gun is loaded or unloaded, so functionally, for the sheeple, it's the same as LOC- people carrying guns on their hips like the wild west!

No, you think too small.

They'll say that UOC is banned because of compelling state interest in keeping people safe from terror, making cops jobs easier in mass shootings by having no one else be legally armed, and keeping guns from being stolen (citing examples of LOC having guns taken from them). They'll ignore the "bear", or worse, define "bear" as only involving the militia, which is satisfied by the California Guard or National guard, and transport laws, as well as exercising out and about in the wilderness. Perhaps throw in lines about mustering soldiers far from cities and bans on weapons in cities to demonstrate that bear does not mean carrying arms in cities.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-13-2016, 12:32 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,789
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frisco3Gun View Post
For those who asked for clarification, I believe Nichols should have given the 9th the ultimatum in his brief. CC is not protected, but Heller (recent history) affirmed that some form of carry must be allowed.

It would have virtually forced them one way or the other. Right now they are still sitting trying to keep both forms restricted. As mrrabbit pointed out, now they can take their time and drag their feet through the mud, giving us UOC years from now.

Instead, the brief and decision read like a history book focused on 17th century laws instead of recent history.

Others may disagree, but just my .02. If he can get LOC back cleanly and timely, I will eat my words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danez71 View Post
1st, CA9 will rule that OC specifically isn't a protected Right - No SCOTUS ruling said that it is. They didn't specify OC or CC.


This should lead to SCOTUS saying to let the States decide which, or both.


Then, push comes to shove in CA, and they'll acknowledge that carrying is a Right subject to 'reasonable' regulation; just like all rights are.


Then the CA Legs will have to decide which one or both.


Then it will be carrying with a 'Shall Issue' permit that still includes a good cause requirement or some other subjective criteria.


And then that battle starts all over again.
You guys REALLY, REALLY can't bring yourselves to face the truth can you? You think the california judiciary can be backed into a corner? What are you smoking? They will only do what they want to do; SCOTUS (ha! You think THEY are a remedy??) has smacked down the 9th for abject defiance numerous times, and you think the 9th won't show abject defiance on BEARING arms????
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-13-2016, 2:30 PM
danez71's Avatar
danez71 danez71 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 494
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
You guys REALLY, REALLY can't bring yourselves to face the truth can you? You think the california judiciary can be backed into a corner? What are you smoking? They will only do what they want to do; SCOTUS (ha! You think THEY are a remedy??) has smacked down the 9th for abject defiance numerous times, and you think the 9th won't show abject defiance on BEARING arms????
If you understood what I wrote, the end result is exactly what we have now except instead of calling it May Issue it will be called Shall Issue but still include the same "reasonable regulations" as now.

IOW, no change; only status quo.

Last edited by danez71; 08-13-2016 at 2:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-13-2016, 5:30 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,789
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by danez71 View Post
If you understood what I wrote, the end result is exactly what we have now except instead of calling it May Issue it will be called Shall Issue but still include the same "reasonable regulations" as now.

IOW, no change; only status quo.
I guess I got confused because you referenced a SCOTUS case, which at this point is so iffy in terms of what they'd decide I disregarded it because that's so uncertain either good OR bad I find speculation that embraces it to be not very useful. SCOTUS or not, we're not going to be given anything willingly by the legislature. Period. Not one more inch, as we say.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-14-2016, 6:44 PM
gunsandrockets's Avatar
gunsandrockets gunsandrockets is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,349
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

"This case is stayed until November 17, 2016."

Whatever the merits of this case or the strategy being used to pursue it, I agree with those who say it is irrelevant.

We put much faith in the Federal Courts, a faith that seemed rewarded after the 2008 and 2010 decisions in the DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago cases.

But almost everything we have seen since 2010, with some narrow exceptions mostly regarding Illinois, shows our faith is misplaced. There is no hope for relief via the Federal Courts.

If you live in the heart of Mordor, in a state like California or New York, your only hope is to get out. Flee to a Free State, escape to Free America while you still can.
__________________
Guns don't kill people, Democrats kill people
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-16-2016, 7:56 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,586
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by danez71 View Post
1st, CA9 will rule that OC specifically isn't a protected Right - No SCOTUS ruling said that it is. They didn't specify OC or CC.


This should lead to SCOTUS saying to let the States decide which, or both.


Then, push comes to shove in CA, and they'll acknowledge that carrying is a Right subject to 'reasonable' regulation; just like all rights are.


Then the CA Legs will have to decide which one or both.


Then it will be carrying with a 'Shall Issue' permit that still includes a good cause requirement or some other subjective criteria.


And then that battle starts all over again.

The problem here is in bold.

While it's technically true that Heller didn't Rule that one way or the other of "and bear" is the Protected Right, that's only because "and bear" wasn't at issue. They DID specify which is the Protected Right though: LOC. And every Circuit to Rule on the issue has correctly quoted Heller when they shot us down.

That doesn't mean the Grabberz won't do all that they can to prevent any manner of "and bear." But, as I pointed out above, I just don't see how.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-16-2016, 9:55 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,337
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunsandrockets View Post
"This case is stayed until November 17, 2016."

Whatever the merits of this case or the strategy being used to pursue it, I agree with those who say it is irrelevant.

We put much faith in the Federal Courts, a faith that seemed rewarded after the 2008 and 2010 decisions in the DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago cases.

But almost everything we have seen since 2010, with some narrow exceptions mostly regarding Illinois, shows our faith is misplaced. There is no hope for relief via the Federal Courts.

If you live in the heart of Mordor, in a state like California or New York, your only hope is to get out. Flee to a Free State, escape to Free America while you still can.
#1 You can move to a county in CA that readily issues:


#2 Moving out-of-state will only buy you some time. The Dems push of "immigration reform" and the subsequent mass immigration, both legal and illegal, of people from countries w/o any sense of, or history of, individual rights & responsibilities (aka non-whites), is about to catch up to us since they vote >2:1 Dem/anti (the "free stuff" party), and thus CA is now hardcore Dem (voted for Reagan 2x in the '80s), and TX, GA, and, IIRC FL are all about to go Dem. When that happens, game over.... Repubs will go the way of the Whigs. The Libertarian P will be even MORE irrelevant. NO ONE has EVER made a 3rd world nation liberty loving and pro-RKBA (unless you count s---holes like Somalia where Khat and AKs are everywhere to be "liberty loving"....)
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1229955

If: (1) Trump does not win, and (2) STOP the mass migration into the USA (both legal & illegal), and (3) DEPORT all the illegals (incl anchor babies and their families) (no, we will not charge them for all the "free stuff" they got while here (free med care, free maternity care, free ER visits, free K-12, instate college tuition, welfare $$$, free public housing/Sec 8, etc), and (4) build a real Wall for real border security ASAP it is Game Over for us and the USA. Period. We'll go via Merkel's Germany to Brazil/Venezuela...
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

220+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 08-16-2016 at 10:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-16-2016, 10:17 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,615
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
#2 Moving out-of-state will only buy you some time. .. NO ONE has EVER made a 3rd world nation liberty loving and pro-RKBA (unless you count s---holes like Somalia where Khat and AKs are everywhere "liberty loving"....)
AKs are all over the place in Somalia, but they are, strangely enough, very tightly regulated. NO ONE carries an AK there without tribal authority to do so, and there is no appeals process for that. AKs in Somalia are not individual gun rights, they are pure and rigid tribalism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
If: (1) Trump does not win, and [stop the third world invasion] it is Game Over for us and the USA. Period. We'll go the way of Merkel's Germany on the road to Brazil/Venezuela...
Actually it won't be game over for the US. It will become a different game, a game that is much less enjoyable than voting. People here will begin to realize that NO ONE gets a homeland except by fighting for it and fighting to defend it. People may start building the psychological and moral foundations for that fight. Zionists in Israel did not suddenly organize and begin fighting in January 1948. No... they spent years building disciplined youth organizations, with networks of trust, ideology, and dogma. They also focused on physical training at a boy scouts++ level, wearing uniforms, camping, etc. All of those factors made them ready to transform into organized fighting groups years later, which could fight to create / defend a homeland for their values. For example, in pre-Israel Palestine, a Jewish group called Haganah organized in 1921, for self-defense and organization. 27 years later, it became the IDF.

This was a huge psychological transformation for Jews from Europe, who had never touched a gun, were afraid to fight into becoming a fighting force that doesn't apologize for its own existence, or its necessary actions to defend its people.


Haganah defenders in 1936


Haganah's great grand children
__________________
I will spit whenever I hear the word Libertarian from now on.

In the 2016 election, Libertarian voters threw the swing states of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine to Hillary, for a total of 38 electoral college votes. Hillary would have created a permanent a permanent entitlement class and permanent Democratic control over the US.

Last edited by CCWFacts; 08-16-2016 at 10:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-16-2016, 10:36 AM
danez71's Avatar
danez71 danez71 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 494
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
The problem here is in bold.

While it's technically true that Heller didn't Rule that one way or the other of "and bear" is the Protected Right, that's only because "and bear" wasn't at issue. They DID specify which is the Protected Right though: LOC. And every Circuit to Rule on the issue has correctly quoted Heller when they shot us down.

That doesn't mean the Grabberz won't do all that they can to prevent any manner of "and bear." But, as I pointed out above, I just don't see how.


The Raisuli
Could you please provide reference for me.

I'm drawing a blank on when/where/what case.


ETA: Are you referring to Heller? If you are, I don't think Heller said OC is protected.

Paraphrasing, IMO,

SCOTUS said they weren't advocating or undermining Conceal Carry.

SCOTUS said requiring the gun be inoperable "would fail constitutional muster".

SCOTUS said that a license/permit is OK as long as its "not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously".

SCOTUS noted Ginsburg comments in Muscellero of carrying/bearing' in reference to the 2A as being relevant to the Heller decision.


Logic would say that California residents should be able to get some type of loaded firearm carrying, with a permit that isn't arbitrarily granted, and with the choice of being OC or CC (or both) being the States decision.

Last edited by danez71; 08-16-2016 at 10:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-16-2016, 11:28 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,337
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
AKs are all over the place in Somalia, but they are, strangely enough, very tightly regulated. NO ONE carries an AK there without tribal authority to do so, and there is no appeals process for that. AKs in Somalia are not individual gun rights, they are pure and rigid tribalism.
I was referring to the formal Somali government (which is in shambles). Of course, when the civil government is weak, new "local governments" (gangs, or in Somalia's case, tribal warlords), move in to fill the void.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
Actually it won't be game over for the US. It will become a different game, a game that is much less enjoyable than voting. People here will begin to realize that NO ONE gets a homeland except by fighting for it and fighting to defend it. People may start building the psychological and moral foundations for that fight. Zionists in Israel ....
It will be "game over for the USA." It may not be game over for the citizens/residents of what was the USA. What you describe is NOT the USA of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

220+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-16-2016, 3:45 PM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think Nichols case is now irrelevant as this issue of open carry will be decided by the panel in the Baker case. Probably for the best.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-16-2016, 6:38 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,337
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
I think Nichols case is now irrelevant as this issue of open carry will be decided by the panel in the Baker case. Probably for the best.
I think we've all learned by now not to "count our chickens until our eggs are hatched."

The main things we have to focus on are the anti bills in CA and getting a Trump win in Nov. (for National CCW Reciprocity and for federal judges/SCOTUS justices).
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

220+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-17-2016, 4:35 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,789
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
I think Nichols case is now irrelevant as this issue of open carry will be decided by the panel in the Baker case. Probably for the best.
Ha.

After the Peruta/Richards avoidance of open carry, you somehow think Baker will decide open carry?

Baker might decide open carry. Perhaps it should decide open carry. But you're making a definitive statement about how CA-dominated courts are going to vote on gun issues?

Wow.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-17-2016, 4:49 PM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Im just stating what I think. Im not afraid to make a prediction about the future, and Im not afraid to be incorrect. Its fun to make predictions about things that are totally out of our control. Dont be a scardey cat, make a prediction.... Its fun and costs nothing. Be positive and cheerful too!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-17-2016, 6:37 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,789
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
Im just stating what I think. Im not afraid to make a prediction about the future, and Im not afraid to be incorrect. Its fun to make predictions about things that are totally out of our control. Dont be a scardey cat, make a prediction.... Its fun and costs nothing. Be positive and cheerful too!
Let's say I wanted to play your game.

Which is it you want me to do: be positive and cheerful, or make a prediction?

You don't get to have both.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:01 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.