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
  #81  
Old 11-13-2016, 1:38 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,789
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I read the rest, and agreed with it, albeit I'm feeling optimistic and believe we will get another appointment in the fairly near term.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post

Otherwise we'd have to be ghouls wishing for the death of certain people - and I don't see that as honorable.
But this... why? Why is it NOT honorable to wish death to bigots to those who deny us justice?

Should black people have felt like ghouls waiting for the death of Henry Billings Brown, author of Plessy0 especially if it were clear he was the ONE obstacle to justice?

I don't understand how someone can be so manifestly evil and yet it's bad to wish their death.

If our rights ARE what we say they are- natural rights, not given to us by man, but by GOD- being DENIED by man, in this case woman- and they are putting us at risk of injury or DEATH-

WE are the ghouls, and dishonorable?

Perhaps I have a different understanding of honor than you do. Because she is dishonorable enough that her death would be justice.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 11-13-2016, 4:26 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I do not disagree that (at least from my perspective) she is dishonorable. But believe it or not, she is very likely to believe she is doing the absolutely correct thing. Her ideology is simply radically different from mine.

I will not step to her level of dishonoring life and liberty. I heartily wish that she retire and live on in peace and joy.

I greatly desire that she and all those who undermine liberty cease their fascist activities but I'll hope for their best possible health.

It is those who do not want liberty for all who will wish death and destruction upon the others.

Just look at who is out there threatening death and destruction because Her Majesty didn't get her deserved position as our absolute ruler? I am unwilling to be like them.

When Ginsburg dies I won't shed a tear. I will feel a little bad for those who were her friends and family (assuming they loved her) but I won't waste significant energy on that either. I will be eager to see who her replacement will be and I will continue to mourn the fact that our country has allowed ultimate authority to be arrogated to the SCOTUS by itself.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 11-13-2016, 10:31 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,789
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
I do not disagree that (at least from my perspective) she is dishonorable. But believe it or not, she is very likely to believe she is doing the absolutely correct thing. Her ideology is simply radically different from mine.
Justice Brown thought he was doing the right thing as well. So was George Wallace. So were the supporters of Pol Pot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
I will not step to her level of dishonoring life and liberty. I heartily wish that she retire and live on in peace and joy.
I myself wish that she would retire and live in peace and joy! But, failing that, I wish WHATEVER means to most rapidly remove her from office. Maybe I'd prefer Breyer gone, as he's the author of the Heller dissent, and a terrible representative of California. But nevertheless, if someone is actively preventing liberty off of their own bigotry that is truly believed- I don't use the word honor in regard to any of their activities, and being stripped of honor, I see nothing that can be done in regards to them that is dishonorable. I would like a "ranked voting" of getting her or Breyer off the court-

1. Decide SCOTUS isn't fun and retire
2. Feel family requires me to retire
3. Decide traveling the world is my best use of time
...
185. Have paranoid delusions of voices telling me I must retire or solar flares will destroy earth's upper atmosphere
...
389. Be caught in a deeply compromising position and shame forces resignation
....
last. Death

But it's still on the list, and still preferable to the unbearable status quo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
I greatly desire that she and all those who undermine liberty cease their fascist activities but I'll hope for their best possible health.
Nope. I hope for the fascist's best possible health as a number two on my ranked voting, below "retire by any means". I don't think black slaves should have felt bound to wish health on their master while yearning for freedom, and I don't yearn for health of someone whose boot is on my neck. As a human, I wish no ill to those who do me no ill, but by keeping your boot upon my neck, it is the same as shooting at me. Your life, and health concerns are now forfeit to greater considerations. Get your boot off and I will celebrate. Hell, change your mind and vote WITH us, and I will toast and celebrate your name til I shuffle off this mortal coil. I would get a RBG or Breyer tattoo if either did that; if I thought it was worthwhile, I'd create a shrine to them and offer daily prayers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
It is those who do not want liberty for all who will wish death and destruction upon the others.

Just look at who is out there threatening death and destruction because Her Majesty didn't get her deserved position as our absolute ruler? I am unwilling to be like them.
I don't threaten. I do wish. Revolutions ARE most likely after a period of progress is met with a sharp decline in progress, so that's not that surprising actually. However, my friends in flyover states assure me... clouds were gathering from supporters of our issue. And, as we well know because of what this website is ABOUT, their protest would be far more serious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
When Ginsburg dies I won't shed a tear. I will feel a little bad for those who were her friends and family (assuming they loved her) but I won't waste significant energy on that either. I will be eager to see who her replacement will be and I will continue to mourn the fact that our country has allowed ultimate authority to be arrogated to the SCOTUS by itself.
I will shed some tears. She has been a beacon of women's progress on the court, she's been a strong, eloquent advocate even through her illness. She's inspired many women, and to some, represents their own personal liberty stake- one that I wish, and still think, could be used as the narrow end of a wedge to drive women towards libertarianism. Ruth Bader Ginsburg represents a lost opportunity to drive women to our fold. I respect her and value her desire to protect the 4th amendment, even though it comes through an explicitly living constitution doctrine.

But I will feel a flutter of hope as well. I won't celebrate as it's not a fete accompli, as Scalia's death was supposed to be for liberals, but upon confirmation of a justice who will give us a RKBA, I will celebrate.

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. I make no apologies.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 11-13-2016 at 10:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 11-16-2016, 4:39 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 lowimpactuser View Post
I read the rest, and agreed with it, albeit I'm feeling optimistic and believe we will get another appointment in the fairly near term.


But this... why? Why is it NOT honorable to wish death to bigots to those who deny us justice?

Should black people have felt like ghouls waiting for the death of Henry Billings Brown, author of Plessy0 especially if it were clear he was the ONE obstacle to justice?

I don't understand how someone can be so manifestly evil and yet it's bad to wish their death.

If our rights ARE what we say they are- natural rights, not given to us by man, but by GOD- being DENIED by man, in this case woman- and they are putting us at risk of injury or DEATH-

WE are the ghouls, and dishonorable?

Perhaps I have a different understanding of honor than you do. Because she is dishonorable enough that her death would be justice.

THIS and your other post get a BIG thumbs up from me. The death of RBG would bring me nothing but joy and happiness. Far too many good people are enslaved or dead because of her.


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
  #85  
Old 12-20-2016, 4:28 PM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There are more shenanigans going on in this case, it appears the State of California wants to delay this case forever, and appears extremely concerned about the position it is being forced to take one way or the other on open carry.

Normally I would be disappointed reading someone opposing an extension to file a brief. But I have to admit Mr. Nichols lays out a pretty damning time line and shows the state's reasons for the request to be pretty ridiculous.

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...Sanctionst.pdf

I also like Nichols request in another filign to have an immediate en banc panel assembled to move things forward. It wont be granted, but its a good move in my opinion.

the tone of his filings is much better, more professional and businesslike, maybe he has some new proof readers?

Is this the part of the movie where Nichols starts looking like an under dog with a serious shot?!
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 12-20-2016, 4:33 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,313
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What has FGG said re. this case?
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

220+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 12-20-2016, 7:06 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,917
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
What has FGG said re. this case?
I dunno but I bet it rates at least one "lol"
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 01-01-2017, 12:24 PM
DarkKing DarkKing is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 82
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
There are more shenanigans going on in this case, it appears the State of California wants to delay this case forever, and appears extremely concerned about the position it is being forced to take one way or the other on open carry.

Normally I would be disappointed reading someone opposing an extension to file a brief. But I have to admit Mr. Nichols lays out a pretty damning time line and shows the state's reasons for the request to be pretty ridiculous.

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...Sanctionst.pdf

I also like Nichols request in another filign to have an immediate en banc panel assembled to move things forward. It wont be granted, but its a good move in my opinion.

the tone of his filings is much better, more professional and businesslike, maybe he has some new proof readers?

Is this the part of the movie where Nichols starts looking like an under dog with a serious shot?!
There are listed technical grounds. If the they side with the state it would set a precedent that the rules do not need to be followed when filing.
Essentially any cases where they denied in the past for not filing on time could be reopened. LAWLs this is a cluster **** for them.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 01-04-2017, 3:57 PM
Dantedamean's Avatar
Dantedamean Dantedamean is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,265
iTrader: 1 / 100%
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 got into an argument with him on Reddit one time. He's kind of a nut. He thinks you're a coward or a criminal if you want to concealed carry and that the only carry that should be available is open carry.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 01-18-2017, 5:40 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The court supposedly has "rules" about the dates by which various paperwork must be filed, but they can apparently violate the enforcement of those deadline rules whenever they wish, and they seemingly always do so for the anti-rights side and against the rights side...

From Mr. Nichols' website this afternoon:

January 18, 2017 – The 9th circuit court of appeals Appellate Commissioner granted the state’s time-barred motion for a sixty day extension of time to file its Answering Brief (now due February 17th) and denied my request for sanctions. And so the 9th circuit court of appeals is going to let the state’s attorney violate the rules of the court of appeals just as the district court judge allowed the state’s attorney to violate the Federal district court rules.

34 – Nichols v. Brown – ORDER [http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...own-ORDER.pdf]

Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 01/18/2017 at 10: 57: 27 AM PST and filed on 01/18/2017

Case Name: Charles Nichols v. Edmund Brown, Jr., et al
Case Number: 14-55873
Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text:
Filed order (Appellate Commissioner): Before: Peter L. Shaw, Appellate Commissioner Appellees’ opposed late motion (Docket Entry No. [32]) for an extension of time to file the answering brief is granted. The answering brief is due February 17, 2017. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. Appellant’s request (Docket Entry No. [33]) for sanctions is denied. Appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc (Docket Entry No. [31]) will be addressed in a separate order. (Pro Mo) [10269637] (LL)

Last edited by surfgeorge; 01-18-2017 at 5:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 01-18-2017, 6:14 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,108
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
The court supposedly has "rules" about the dates by which various paperwork must be filed, but they can apparently violate the enforcement of those deadline rules whenever they wish, and they seemingly always do so for the anti-rights side and against the rights side...

From Mr. Nichols' website this afternoon:

January 18, 2017 – The 9th circuit court of appeals Appellate Commissioner granted the state’s time-barred motion for a sixty day extension of time to file its Answering Brief (now due February 17th) and denied my request for sanctions. And so the 9th circuit court of appeals is going to let the state’s attorney violate the rules of the court of appeals just as the district court judge allowed the state’s attorney to violate the Federal district court rules.

34 – Nichols v. Brown – ORDER [http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...own-ORDER.pdf]

Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 01/18/2017 at 10: 57: 27 AM PST and filed on 01/18/2017

Case Name: Charles Nichols v. Edmund Brown, Jr., et al
Case Number: 14-55873
Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text:
Filed order (Appellate Commissioner): Before: Peter L. Shaw, Appellate Commissioner Appellees’ opposed late motion (Docket Entry No. [32]) for an extension of time to file the answering brief is granted. The answering brief is due February 17, 2017. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. Appellant’s request (Docket Entry No. [33]) for sanctions is denied. Appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc (Docket Entry No. [31]) will be addressed in a separate order. (Pro Mo) [10269637] (LL)
More reason to hope Trump focuses on repopulating the ninth district with pro Constitutionalist judges.
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 01-19-2017, 9:36 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,401
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Didn't SCOTUS grant a similar extension to our side for Cert filing? It sucks to have to wait, but I think the judges want to give everyone the best shot they can at presenting their side; even if the case is already "decided"....
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 01-19-2017, 10:16 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
Didn't SCOTUS grant a similar extension to our side for Cert filing? It sucks to have to wait, but I think the judges want to give everyone the best shot they can at presenting their side; even if the case is already "decided"....
If you're talking about Peruta the documents requesting extensions to file for cert were filed in a timely manner and I can almost certainly guarantee that had they been filed after the legal deadline for filing they would not have been accepted.

The opposite occurred here with Nichols. It is a clear missing of a deadline and then a granting of the late application without any explanation at all as to what legal reasoning was used to forgive the late filing. It's pure hypocrisy.

I can do no better than to quote Mr. Nichols himself, published just the day before his "hope" was dashed:

"The Answering Brief by Governor Brown and the Attorney General in my California Open Carry appeal was Due on December 19, 2016 which was 29 days ago. In a decision published last Friday by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a man did not get his $99,500 returned from the government because he missed his filing deadline by thirty-five minutes. I filed my opposition to the state's time-barred motion for an extension on December 20th, well within the ten day limit for me to file my opposition. The state missed its deadline, I have met all of my deadlines. The state's motion is still pending. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Hopefully, it will not be a case of "One rule for me and another for thee.""
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 01-19-2017, 10:54 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,401
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Ok thanks for the correction.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 01-19-2017, 2:55 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,207
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
If you're talking about Peruta the documents requesting extensions to file for cert were filed in a timely manner and I can almost certainly guarantee that had they been filed after the legal deadline for filing they would not have been accepted.

The opposite occurred here with Nichols. It is a clear missing of a deadline and then a granting of the late application without any explanation at all as to what legal reasoning was used to forgive the late filing. It's pure hypocrisy.

I can do no better than to quote Mr. Nichols himself, published just the day before his "hope" was dashed:

"The Answering Brief by Governor Brown and the Attorney General in my California Open Carry appeal was Due on December 19, 2016 which was 29 days ago. In a decision published last Friday by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a man did not get his $99,500 returned from the government because he missed his filing deadline by thirty-five minutes. I filed my opposition to the state's time-barred motion for an extension on December 20th, well within the ten day limit for me to file my opposition. The state missed its deadline, I have met all of my deadlines. The state's motion is still pending. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Hopefully, it will not be a case of "One rule for me and another for thee.""
This was so predictable. The court and the government are basically one in the same when it comes to 2A cases, especially in the 9th.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 01-23-2017, 4:34 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,207
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
There are more shenanigans going on in this case, it appears the State of California wants to delay this case forever, and appears extremely concerned about the position it is being forced to take one way or the other on open carry.

Normally I would be disappointed reading someone opposing an extension to file a brief. But I have to admit Mr. Nichols lays out a pretty damning time line and shows the state's reasons for the request to be pretty ridiculous.

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...Sanctionst.pdf

I also like Nichols request in another filign to have an immediate en banc panel assembled to move things forward. It wont be granted, but its a good move in my opinion.

the tone of his filings is much better, more professional and businesslike, maybe he has some new proof readers?

Is this the part of the movie where Nichols starts looking like an under dog with a serious shot?!
One of the briefs I read recently (I think the Flanagan case) seems to indicate CA strategy will be to play the urban vs. Rural carry. They know by trying for a home bound right will create an obvious split with CA7 so this is what they've got.
It's weak but CA9 is just the kind of court that'll try to do legal gymnastics to avoid a split but still allow for all kinds of infringement.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 02-10-2017, 5:55 AM
edfardos edfardos is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 115
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

god bless charles

We could be living history here. Faces like his could be on the currency of The Second Constitutional Republic of America.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 02-17-2017, 5:17 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 866
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://www.scribd.com/document/3396...nswering-Brief


answering brief
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 02-17-2017, 5:26 PM
freonr22's Avatar
freonr22 freonr22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Jose
Posts: 12,160
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

I can't download the scribed app..post a pdf?
__________________
<img src=http://calgunsfoundation.org/images/stories/San-Benito.jpg border=0 alt= />[IMG]file:///C:/Users/PCMECH%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-3.png[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:/Users/PCMECH%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-4.png[/IMG]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
We will win. We are right. We will never stop fighting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
They don't believe it's possible, but then Alison didn't believe there'd be 350K - 400K OLLs in CA either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by louisianagirl View Post
Our fate is ours alone to decide as long as we remain armed heavily enough to dictate it.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 02-17-2017, 5:32 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 866
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

cal guns website will not let me
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 02-17-2017, 5:33 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 866
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://www.mdshooters.com/showthrea...t=70625&page=4

go to here to download it
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 02-17-2017, 6:56 PM
freonr22's Avatar
freonr22 freonr22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Jose
Posts: 12,160
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Thank you sir!
__________________
<img src=http://calgunsfoundation.org/images/stories/San-Benito.jpg border=0 alt= />[IMG]file:///C:/Users/PCMECH%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-3.png[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:/Users/PCMECH%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-4.png[/IMG]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
We will win. We are right. We will never stop fighting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
They don't believe it's possible, but then Alison didn't believe there'd be 350K - 400K OLLs in CA either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by louisianagirl View Post
Our fate is ours alone to decide as long as we remain armed heavily enough to dictate it.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 02-17-2017, 7:23 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Guitar: The Deplorables
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 29,253
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
cal guns website will not let me
Works for me....
Attached Files
File Type: pdf nichols answering brief.pdf (398.9 KB, 33 views)
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 02-17-2017, 8:17 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,041
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Nichols is in good shape. The government's opposition brief ignores the rule that Heller and Caetano address that the states must allow some form of bearing arms outside of the home. Nichols can hit a home run there.

The crux of the government's argument is that regulation of bearing of arms pre-existed the colonies and was contemporary with the colonies (i.e. the framer's intent). Nichols can hit a home run by analogizing the 1st Amendment with fax machines, the abortion penumbra doctrine, the right to vote, etc, as modern doctrines which proposes contemporary values not limited by the framers' intent as modern case law has done.

The government punted entirely with Article I, section 1, the right to safety. Nichols can hit a home home run by just cutting and pasting Supreme Court justice and distinguished scholar Grodin's law reviews. http://www.hastingsconlawquarterly.o.../I1/Grodin.pdf

Yes, Nichols will likely lose, not because his arguments are unsupported by law or inartfully drafted, but because the judiciary will conveniently relegate the 2nd Amendment to the realm of the dead letter. To do so is a political imperative demanded by the wealthy to repress the working class.

Even if Nichols' contention could be re-framed as the government urges- that a person has an unfettered right to carry openly in any manner and in any setting- it narrows the scope of the government and courts' pretexts for not allowing any carry; that is on on one end of the spectrum of law, no concealed carry, and on the other end, no broad open carry. We must then ask and courts must answer- what is left of the right to bear?

Last edited by sarabellum; 02-18-2017 at 1:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 02-17-2017, 9:47 PM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The states brief is pretty bad.

California's official position is that there is no "right" to open carry a loaded or unloaded firearm in public, never has been, and even if there were, a near complete ban is acceptable under rational basis or intermediate scrutiny.

I expect the intellectually bankrupt 9th circuit ct. of appeals to agree with California, and then Nichols will have to seek US Supreme Court review. He should ask Paul Clements or someone with a lot of Supreme Court experience to handle the 9th circuit oral argument and to make a good record for Supreme Court review.

I would also urge Nichols to object to the inclusion of a bunch of garbage studies in the appellate record by the State. These should not be allowed to be added to the record at this late date, and Nichols will have no chance to submit competing studies.

Incredibly sad that such a clear individual right is so reviled that the State and the Courts just make up nonsense to destroy the right.

I wish Nichols wisdom and humility in the 4th quarter of his personal superbowl.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 02-18-2017, 5:40 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,207
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
Nichols is in good shape. The government's opposition brief ignores the rule that Heller and Caetano address that the states must allow some form of bearing arms outside of the home. Nichols can hit a home run there.

The crux of the government's argument is that regulation of bearing of arms pre-existed the colonies and was contemporary with the colonies (i.e. the framer's intent). Nichols can hit a home run by analogizing the 1st Amendment with fax machines, the abortion penumbra doctrine, the right to vote, etc, as modern cases have done.

The government punted entirely with Article I, section 1, the right to safety. Nichols can hit a home home run by just cutting and pasting Supreme Court justice and distinguished scholar Grodin's law reviews. http://www.hastingsconlawquarterly.o.../I1/Grodin.pdf

Yes, Nichols will likely lose, not because his arguments are unsupported by law or inartfully drafted, but because the judiciary will conveniently relegate the 2nd Amendment to the realm of the dead letter. To do so is a political imperative demanded by the wealthy to repress the working class.

Even if Nichols' contention could be re-framed as the government urges- that a person has an unfettered right to carry openly in any manner and in any setting- it narrows the scope of the government and courts' pretexts for not allowing any carry; that is on on one end of the spectrum of law, no concealed carry, and on the other end, no broad open carry. We must then ask and courts must answer- what is left of the right to bear?


I'll add that CA is arguing that a ban on public carry is permissible, yet instead of just coming out and saying it, they simply keep referring to open carry bans being permissible (Guess they think CA9 might change their mind and say that Nichols should have applied for a CCW?). Clearly they are walking a narrow line, desperately trying to avoid a split with Moore.
The state also seems to be contradicting itself from Peruta, pointing to the dissent which said that the state may choose the manner of carry ( seems the manner of carry they choose is NO carry).
I always get a kick out of the state mentioning the carry bans of select few jurisdictions, none of which ever faced court challenges and which were repealed soon after.
What I see though is a "win" requiring ALL CA counties to offer open carry permits, but CA9 will make clear they can be may-issue. So in effect, nothing much will change. The Norman case may play a role here too, and should be ruled on any time now (its been around 8 months since orals).
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 02-18-2017, 7:59 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,296
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I expect one of these idiotic states to eventually argue that the opportunity to become a police officer satisfies the right to bear. There is absolutely no difference between that and a "may issue" scheme, save for the specific requirements of each.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 02-18-2017, 8:16 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,207
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I expect one of these idiotic states to eventually argue that the opportunity to become a police officer satisfies the right to bear. There is absolutely no difference between that and a "may issue" scheme, save for the specific requirements of each.
Furthermore, California’s laws contain numerous well-considered
exceptions, including an exigent-circumstances exception for instances in
which there is a bona fide need to have a firearm for defense of self, other
persons, or property, and an exception for people who have obtained
restraining orders against other people, etc. See Cal. Penal Code
§§ 26045(a) (permitting carrying a loaded firearm to protect persons or
property from immediate, grave danger), 26362 (exigent circumstances
exception for open carry of unloaded handgun), 26405(b) (exigent
circumstances exception for open carry of unloaded long gun). Each of
these exceptions lessens any burden imposed by the laws. In this respect,

California’s open-carry laws contrast with the “blanket,” statewide Illinois
public-carry prohibition that the Seventh Circuit invalidated in Moore v.
Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 939, 940 (2012)


So you can carry only under "exigent" circumstances. Any other rights that can be exercised under only "exigent" circumstances?
It's really pathetic that the state thinks these exceptions make it any different than the Illinois law (taking into account CCW is off the table). Only more pathetic is that many of the leftists on CA9 might actually buy it.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 02-18-2017, 1:16 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,041
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Furthermore, California’s laws contain numerous well-considered
exceptions, including an exigent-circumstances exception for instances in
which there is a bona fide need to have a firearm for defense of self, other
persons, or property, and an exception for people who have obtained
restraining orders against other people, etc. See Cal. Penal Code
§§ 26045(a) (permitting carrying a loaded firearm to protect persons or
property from immediate, grave danger), 26362 (exigent circumstances
exception for open carry of unloaded handgun), 26405(b) (exigent
circumstances exception for open carry of unloaded long gun). Each of
these exceptions lessens any burden imposed by the laws. In this respect,

California’s open-carry laws contrast with the “blanket,” statewide Illinois
public-carry prohibition that the Seventh Circuit invalidated in Moore v.
Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 939, 940 (2012)


So you can carry only under "exigent" circumstances. Any other rights that can be exercised under only "exigent" circumstances?
It's really pathetic that the state thinks these exceptions make it any different than the Illinois law (taking into account CCW is off the table). Only more pathetic is that many of the leftists on CA9 might actually buy it.
The government's reliance on Cal. Penal Code §§ 26045(a) (permitting carrying a loaded firearm to protect persons or property from immediate, grave danger) is comical because it implies carrying openly on one's property or immediately or contemporaneously with the assault or battery somewhere away from home such that you race home to get your arm and race back to the scene. This is a time machine statute; it cannot possibly exempt one from openly carrying at the train or carjacking station because one's gun is at home in the past while the violence occurs at a future time.

The exigent circumstances clumsily taken from the 4th Amendment exception to the warrant requirement (practical certainty that a crime has been committed or that the evidence/suspect will disappear + no time to obtain a warrant) in the civilian context requires one to be psychic. Why? The context for the 4th Amendment is an immediate unexpected need to seize someone or use force by a policeman already permitted to armed all the time in public, who did not expect the unexpected danger. In the civilian context, one must either be psychic or press the time machine button to go back in time to get the gun to then appear in the present at the time of one's mugging at the 7-Eleven.

Nichols could mockingly rebut with the above if he wanted. Should I send a letter to Mr. Nichols to that effect?

Last edited by sarabellum; 02-19-2017 at 12:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 02-18-2017, 9:55 PM
RSC's Avatar
RSC RSC is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: OC
Posts: 91
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Why not! I kind of like this way of tackling this conundrum. Something has to give to release the "pressure", this might be it
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 02-19-2017, 9:32 AM
KC_to_CA KC_to_CA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 427
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Now, could the 9th find a way to Rule that LOC isn't the Right [B
either[/B]? 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 Raisuli
They can say "CCW is nott a right and we upheld current OC statues".
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 02-19-2017, 11:40 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,207
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KC_to_CA View Post
They can say "CCW is nott a right and we upheld current OC statues".
It's going to be real tricky for them. No public carry in LA w/o a CCW, which is off the table.
CA9 (assuming a bad panel, which is likely) will have to somehow prove that a law which only allows carry if the person is in imminent danger is somehow a world apart from the IL law struck down in Moore. The easiest route is CA9 laying out a blueprint of may issue for OC permits statewide, a wink to the state that they can continue to smother public carry.
The dissent in Moore did the same thing, basically laying out that forests and other clearly non-sensitive places could be made off limits.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 02-19-2017, 12:41 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,041
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSC View Post
Why not! I kind of like this way of tackling this conundrum. Something has to give to release the "pressure", this might be it
Done. I communicated with Nichols about the above. It went no where.

Last edited by sarabellum; 02-25-2017 at 4:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 02-19-2017, 3:48 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 866
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I can't wait for oral arguments. I will fly up to San Fran to watch that. I hope he wins. Despite his obvious personality issues I do respect the fact he has kept this up for so many years.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 02-20-2017, 8:39 AM
Diamondi88 Diamondi88 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Wildomar
Posts: 69
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

CA9 will come back and say open carry is not a protected right under the 2nd amendment just as they did with CCW.
It is a catch 22. You have no right to conceal carry so we can regulate it.
You have no right to open carry so we can regulate it.
The challenge will be to bring to SCOTUS a case were both carries are raised and asking for relief in one form or the other to carry outside the home.

Last edited by Diamondi88; 02-20-2017 at 1:54 PM.. Reason: Edited to address surfgeorge
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 02-20-2017, 10:09 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamondi88 View Post
CA9 will come back and say open carry is not a protected right under the 2nd amendment just as they did with CCW.
It is a catch 22. You have no right to conceal carry so we can regulate it.
You have no right to open carry so we can regulate it.
The challenge will be to bring to court a case were both carries are raised and asking for relief in one form or the other to carry outside the home.
Hawaii has already argued that there no right to bear arms, in any manner, openly or concealed in public (and everywhere outside the home is public and thus a "sensitive place"), and that "the right to bear arms" is satisfied by bearing them while hunting or at ranges or in your home or business (and transporting them unloaded in closed containers only to those locations along with retail gun stores, gunsmiths, your home, business or place of sojourn, or a police station). The proof of their seriousness about this belief is that not one single "ordinary person" (I'm excluding security personnel who are granted open carry licenses while employed and only applicable while on duty) in the state has been granted a license for years (a total of four (4) in the 17 years since record keeping and reporting has been mandated).

Pretty simple really. If you think I'm making stuff up, or misinterpreting, or taking something "out of context", you can read it yourself here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...7%20Hawaii.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 02-20-2017, 1:57 PM
Diamondi88 Diamondi88 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Wildomar
Posts: 69
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
Hawaii has already argued that there no right to bear arms, in any manner, openly or concealed in public (and everywhere outside the home is public and thus a "sensitive place"), and that "the right to bear arms" is satisfied by bearing them while hunting or at ranges or in your home or business (and transporting them unloaded in closed containers only to those locations along with retail gun stores, gunsmiths, your home, business or place of sojourn, or a police station). The proof of their seriousness about this belief is that not one single "ordinary person" (I'm excluding security personnel who are granted open carry licenses while employed and only applicable while on duty) in the state has been granted a license for years (a total of four (4) in the 17 years since record keeping and reporting has been mandated).

Pretty simple really. If you think I'm making stuff up, or misinterpreting, or taking something "out of context", you can read it yourself here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...7%20Hawaii.pdf
I have been following your plight in Hawaii through your posts for awhile. Sometimes reading them I think "glad I don't live there" then realize I live in CA.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 02-20-2017, 4:32 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamondi88 View Post
I have been following your plight in Hawaii through your posts for awhile. Sometimes reading them I think "glad I don't live there" then realize I live in CA.
Yeah, let's not get into a "Oh woe is me!" contest... no one could possibly win that one and we'll both just end up depressed.

I don't see how either state, given the current population political inclinations (Hawaii gave Clinton her largest percentage of victory; consistently has the lowest voter turnout in the U.S.; state Senate: 100% Democrat, state House:L 88% Democrat, etc.) can turn things around via political/legislative or administrative branch means. Given the Ninth Circuit, I don't see how either state can turn things around via the courts, unless or until we get some favorable SCOTUS appointments and several relevant cases are granted cert and decided in our favor at that level. Then, maybe, eventually CA and HI will be "forced" to "allow" people to exercise those unalienable and uninfringeable rights those lawmakers and law enforcement and judges swore to uphold and defend.

I hope the Nichols case makes some advance(s), but certainly don't hold out much hope for a favorable decision from the Ninth.

It's gonna be a battle. Likely a long one. I wish us all luck. We're gonna need it.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 02-24-2017, 1:29 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 866
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

amicus brief due today

Brady Campaign filed one


https://www.scribd.com/document/3402...ampaign-Amicus

I really wish the NRA had filed one to balance this out. I wonder why they did not.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 02-24-2017, 1:40 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,789
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
amicus brief due today

Brady Campaign filed one


https://www.scribd.com/document/3402...ampaign-Amicus

I really wish the NRA had filed one to balance this out. I wonder why they did not.
Nichols has a theory. While he might be stark raving mad, stopped clocks are right twice a day, which means he could be a crazy stopped clock but still right about filing an open carry lawsuit and right about the NRA and their feelings on open carry.

I personally can't find better alternative explanations. Even when they disagreed with Heller NRA tried to step in.
__________________
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 5:34 AM.




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.