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 > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-05-2012, 6:41 PM
bebe67 bebe67 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 42
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default SB 661 Gutted great job!!!

Senate Bill 661 is Gutted



Thanks to the efforts of members of California Right To Carry, a California nonprofit association of Second Amendment activists, the bill has been gutted and no longer deals with firearms.

Senate Bill 661, authored by Democrat State Senator Ted Lieu (Redondo Beach) would have expanded California's current so-called Gun Free School Zones to 2,000 feet from a K-12 public or private school.

Which is to say virtually every urban area of the state would have fallen within a Gun Free Zone.

The bill would have made it a crime to transport a handgun into, or out of, one's home unless his property was surrounded by a fence sufficiently tall to prevent persons from entering the property.

Driveways would have required similar gates as well.

In short, unless one's private property was entirely enclosed by a fence and it was located within 2,000 feet of a K-12 school it would have been a crime to transport a handgun.

Simply transporting an unloaded handgun, locked in a case, to your automobile in your driveway or parked in front of your house would have been a criminal offense.

Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry, threatened to bring a Federal lawsuit to overturn the bill if it became law.

Mr. Nichols has already filed a Federal lawsuit seeking to overturn California's 1967 law making it a criminal offense to openly carry a loaded firearm.
Senator Ted Lieu - The Author of the Bill



Democrat Senator Ted Lieu was elected in a special election on February 15th, 2011 to the 28th State Senate District to fill the seat left empty by the death of State Senator Jenny Oropeza.

Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry, had a brief conversation last year with Senator Lieu expressing his opposition to the bill, as well as his opposition to AB 144, California's ban on openly carrying an unloaded handgun.

Mr. Nichols pointed out that the voter turnout in his special election was extremely light (12%) and it would only take a little over eleven thousand signatures of registered voters to force the Senator into a runoff election.

Mr. Lieu's district office is located in the city of Redondo Beach. The entire city would have become a "Gun Free Zone" had his bill passed. The same is true of nearly every city in the district.

In a district with nearly half a million registered voters, it would not have been too difficult to gather the signatures necessary to force Mr. Lieu into a recall election.

Worse for the Senator, he now finds himself a victim of redistricting. He no longer has Wilmington or Long Beach Democrats to reelect him.

Senator Lieu did not vote for final passage of AB 144, the ban on openly carrying an unloaded handgun. He abstained.

Instead, Mr. Lieu turned his attentions to banning shark fin soup. Not to mention his ban on the use of tanning booths by persons under the age of 18.
  #2  
Old 01-05-2012, 6:42 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,861
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

GIVE ME A BREAK..................
__________________
  #3  
Old 01-05-2012, 6:46 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bebe67 View Post
Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry, threatened to bring a Federal lawsuit to overturn the bill if it became law.
I'm sure that was it.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
  #4  
Old 01-05-2012, 6:50 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,861
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
I'm sure that was it.
The cause of the laughter coming from Ted Lieu's office?
__________________
  #5  
Old 01-05-2012, 6:50 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
I'm sure that was it.
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
  #6  
Old 01-05-2012, 6:53 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,861
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

bebe67; if you actually believe that, I have a bridge for you to buy
__________________
  #7  
Old 01-05-2012, 7:00 PM
Connor P Price's Avatar
Connor P Price Connor P Price is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,900
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

In similar news we have the NRA to thank for McDonald, the two decade long reduction in violent crime in our nation is thanks to the Brady's, and Al Gore invented the internet.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker
Calguns Foundation: "Advancing your civil rights, and helping you win family bets, since 2008."

-Brandon
  #8  
Old 01-05-2012, 7:04 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 5,986
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

No need to be quite this harsh on someone who simply has what I consider to be an erroneous perspective.

bebe67, I kinda like Mr. Nichols. But it seems pretty unlikely that Mr. Lieu paid any significant attention to what Mr. Nichols said.

Far more likely that NRA's people had a talk with some of his fellow legislators who told him his legislation was utterly moronic and that if he pushed it any further that they were going mess with his committee assignments and maybe sabotage his re-election attempts. Any redistricting changes would just add to the relevance of the threats from above.

Mr. Nichols is likely no more important politically than am I. And I'm pretty darned politically irrelevant.
  #9  
Old 01-05-2012, 7:04 PM
TKM's Avatar
TKM TKM is online now
then there's classified.
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: You know that line of dare-devils going 70 in the fast lane? I'm behind them, gorram it!
Posts: 6,813
iTrader: 57 / 100%
Cool

SB 661 (Lieu)
Crime: picketing.

Existing law makes it a crime for a person to disturb, obstruct, detain, or interfere with any person carrying or accompanying human remains to a cemetery or funeral establishment, or engaged in a funeral service or an interment.

This bill would make it a crime, punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000, imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding 6 months, or by both, for a person to engage in picketing, as defined, except upon private property, which is targeted at a funeral, as defined, during the time period beginning one hour prior to the funeral and ending one hour after the conclusion of the funeral. The bill would set forth related findings and declarations.

Because this bill would create a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Strange, the bill doesn't say what you say it does.

Legalese can be so confusing.
__________________
NRA Patron Member CRPA/Life Member/CGF Contributor/

It’s actually kind of beautiful that in America a large group of people known for owning guns are only feared because they vote.


“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
― Harlan Ellison

Last edited by Kestryll; 01-07-2012 at 8:09 AM..
  #10  
Old 01-05-2012, 7:23 PM
G60's Avatar
G60 G60 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hanford
Posts: 3,986
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

It's the new anti-westboro baptist church funeral picketing bill.

SB888 (lieu), same thing was vetoed by governor brown last year.
  #11  
Old 01-05-2012, 7:24 PM
six seven tango's Avatar
six seven tango six seven tango is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: wrong side of the Colorado river
Posts: 1,316
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Actually, as originally introduced last year SB 661 was an amendment to the GFSZ. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/...ntroduced.html

The bill died later in the year as seen on page 3 of this thread http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=399837

It looks like SB 661 has been completly re-written and re-introduced yesturday as shown here http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/...d_sen_v98.html

So, I guess technically, the OP is correct.
__________________


When Injustice Becomes Law, Resistance is Duty

"Our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." AG Kamala Harris referring to San Francisco's sanctuary policy and 7 time convicted felon and illegal alien Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9CA
...Nor may we relegate the bearing of arms to a “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause.”
  #12  
Old 01-05-2012, 7:33 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by six seven tango View Post
So, I guess technically, the OP is correct.
In so much as the bill was gutted and amended to change it from an expanded GFSZ bill into an anti-free speech bill, yes, the OP is correct. As to the reason for the gutting well...... We'll have to ask Leiu why.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
  #13  
Old 01-05-2012, 7:35 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Senator Lieu did not vote for final passage of AB 144, the ban on openly carrying an unloaded handgun. He abstained.

Instead, Mr. Lieu turned his attentions to banning shark fin soup. Not to mention his ban on the use of tanning booths by persons under the age of 18.
Wow, what a maverick!! CH really had this guy by the go nads!! LOL He abstained!! Went to shark fin soup and tanning booths.

CN, did you actually raise your voice to him about shark fin soup and tanning booths also? You know, like firearms, people have a right to eat shark fin soup and get tanned also!!!
  #14  
Old 01-05-2012, 7:37 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
You know, like firearms, people have a right to eat shark fin soup and get tanned also!!!
I don't know about tanned but my hide's been chapped a few times.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
  #15  
Old 01-05-2012, 7:37 PM
six seven tango's Avatar
six seven tango six seven tango is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: wrong side of the Colorado river
Posts: 1,316
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Sorry, dantodd. I probably should have quoted TKM for that reply.



Quote:
Originally Posted by TKM View Post
Strange, the bill doesn't say what you say it does.
__________________


When Injustice Becomes Law, Resistance is Duty

"Our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." AG Kamala Harris referring to San Francisco's sanctuary policy and 7 time convicted felon and illegal alien Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9CA
...Nor may we relegate the bearing of arms to a “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause.”
  #16  
Old 01-05-2012, 8:30 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 32,272
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

And of course, the bill as introduced proposed a change from 1000 feet to 1500 feet, not 2000, and mentioned nothing at all about fencing or gates on home driveways.

And, while perhaps kindly meant, the no-picketing-funerals bill is likely a 1st Amendment violation.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


  #17  
Old 01-05-2012, 8:42 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 5,986
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
.
.
.
And, while perhaps kindly meant, the no-picketing-funerals bill is likely a 1st Amendment violation.
I think this is the relevant case: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf
  #18  
Old 01-05-2012, 8:49 PM
Doppelgänger's Avatar
Doppelgänger Doppelgänger is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SD760
Posts: 19
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
And of course, the bill as introduced proposed a change from 1000 feet to 1500 feet, not 2000, and mentioned nothing at all about fencing or gates on home driveways.

And, while perhaps kindly meant, the no-picketing-funerals bill is likely a 1st Amendment violation.
That and I thought having the gun unloaded in a locked case meant it didn't matter if you had a gate to make your private party not "publicly accessible"?
  #19  
Old 01-05-2012, 9:27 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 32,272
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppelgänger View Post
That and I thought having the gun unloaded in a locked case meant it didn't matter if you had a gate to make your private party not "publicly accessible"?
Locked unloaded is an exemption to 626.9, at (c)(2)
Quote:
(c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm
under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Within a place of residence or place of business or on private
property, if the place of residence, place of business, or private
property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the
firearm is otherwise lawful.
(2) When the firearm is an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other
firearm capable of being concealed on the person and is in a locked
container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle.
- the earlier 661 would have changed that to 'inside a motor vehicle' only, which would have added a conflict with 25505, the 'not in a vehicle' transport provision.

School zones, of course, were the real limitation on the utility of open carry, since school zones impose the locked container. That problem exists now in what is disputed to be 'public' areas of 'private' property; 661 didn't create it (would not have created it).
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


  #20  
Old 01-05-2012, 9:55 PM
GOEX FFF's Avatar
GOEX FFF GOEX FFF is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Under the Bill of Rights
Posts: 5,266
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

So let me get this straight. Nichols is trying to take credit to say that he changed Lieu's mind so that he'd gut 661, (a bill that already died) and make it a completely different bill all together?

Sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probat

"A wise man states as true nothing he does not prove."


ETA: /me *raises hand* Oo I know.

Perhaps he's trying to claim that he's scoring points, in hopes for more donations.
__________________


Gun-Control: "A theory like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."

Last edited by GOEX FFF; 01-05-2012 at 10:50 PM..
  #21  
Old 01-05-2012, 10:18 PM
berto's Avatar
berto berto is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Posts: 7,725
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Is bebe67 Charles Nichols?
  #22  
Old 01-05-2012, 10:32 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 22,803
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bebe67 View Post
Simply transporting an unloaded handgun, locked in a case, to your automobile in your driveway or parked in front of your house would have been a criminal offense.
Wrong.

Locked, unloaded, concealed carry is and always has been a legal exemption for GFSZ and SB661 did not change that.


But considering the source is a typical spreader of misinformation, we understand your confusion.
__________________
-- 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 minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA is our insurance against their success.
  #23  
Old 01-05-2012, 10:36 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 22,803
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by berto View Post
Is bebe67 Charles Nichols?
That, or his friend, my friend.
__________________
-- 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 minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA is our insurance against their success.
  #24  
Old 01-05-2012, 10:36 PM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,181
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

__________________

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, but let me remind you also that moderation in the persuit of justice is no virtue" -Barry Goldwater

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” -Gerald Ford

Quote:
Originally Posted by cudakidd View Post
I want Blood for Oil. Heck I want Blood for Oil over hand wringing sentiment!
^
  #25  
Old 01-05-2012, 11:06 PM
Mike's Custom's Avatar
Mike's Custom Mike's Custom is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bakersfield CA
Posts: 875
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Abstaining from voting, unless you have some history that would disqualify you, is chicken ship. Abstaining is worse then voting either way and can always be taken as a negative vote. Being a wishy washy POS is the worst kind of lowlife.
__________________
"Gun control is not about guns, it is about control"

Mike's Custom Firearms 661-834-7836
http://mikescustomfirearms.com/
  #26  
Old 01-06-2012, 5:06 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 5,986
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

One other point. SB661 in its original form was very bad law and would have been opposed by everyone who supports civil rights.

That said, its enactment might have been a big strategic victory for us. I suspect it would have allowed a facial challenge to the California GFSZ and gotten the thing killed off. Not sure that the court victory would have held up in the political arena, however.

But I suspect that any good anti-RKBA lawyer would have vehemently opposed passage of SB661 on strategic grounds.

SB661 being re-gutted is a good thing, but it is not an unalloyed good.
  #27  
Old 01-06-2012, 6:23 AM
goldrush goldrush is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 366
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Why the petty jealousy of Nichols? Does this site like to think of itself as an oracle and gatekeeper, and Nichols doesn't feel burdened to genuflect before your altar?

Yes, that's it. I found it: http://californiarighttocarry.org/

Nichols is off doing his own thing, and he stands to be a thunder-stealer. Every board, forum, group, bbs, listserv, gopher, etc. has an assemblage of "experts" who believe that they control the issue and meter its application. Parallel paths to action deprive the "experts" of legitimacy and supplicants.

Last edited by goldrush; 01-06-2012 at 6:31 AM..
  #28  
Old 01-06-2012, 6:29 AM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

What, exactly, would anyone be jealous of?

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
  #29  
Old 01-06-2012, 6:40 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goldrush View Post
Why the petty jealousy of Nichols? Does this site like to think of itself as an oracle and gatekeeper, and Nichols doesn't feel burdened to genuflect before your altar?
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...harles-Nichols

Commentary:

Quote:
He did not like the fact that several members of the leadership board of SBOC had disagreements of opinion with him as to first steps in getting CA to Constitutional Carry. He thought that since a few of them thought having a first start be shall issue permit carry was acceptable that SBOC had lost its purity and therefore he must take over. He also did not like the fact that the SBOC leadership did not get behind his 12031 lawsuit (they did not oppose, they just took a neutral stance).
And for that, he made a false filing with the state as leadership of the group (which he never was).

Mr. Nichols, by the paperwork he submitted to the state, lied to a state agency. This is a criminal offense. Federal judges, especially district court judges, use the internet.

Rather than using the tried & true method of using sympathetic plaintiffs, he used himself.

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 01-06-2012 at 6:50 AM..
  #30  
Old 01-06-2012, 6:41 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

After all i followed and read into Mr. Charles Nichols, and reading his case, I can truly attest to the fact that in no way shape or form could i ever be jealous of someone trying to sue the state of California. Especially the way this person is going about it. ALONE! My question is WHY! So who has an ax to grind and what did anyone ever do to him?

Sorry but lifes to short.
  #31  
Old 01-06-2012, 6:50 AM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,861
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
What, exactly, would anyone be jealous of?

-Brandon
Aren't you jealous of anyone who has the ability to alter the past to suit their current fund raising agenda?

Aren't you jealous of anyone who has the ability to alienate the membership of a group of Open Carry Advocates?

Aren't you jealous of anyone who has the ability to silence people who question them on Facebook?

Me either, but I’m not sure who has all of these social skills…

__________________
  #32  
Old 01-06-2012, 6:53 AM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,861
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...harles-Nichols

Commentary:



And for that, he made a false filing with the state as leadership of the group (which he never was).

Mr. Nichols, by the paperwork he submitted to the state, lied to a state agency. This is a criminal offense. Federal judges, especially district court judges, use the internet.

Rather than using the tried & true method of using sympathetic plaintiffs, he used himself.
Thanks Gray


I had forgotten about that move by Mr. Nichols....
__________________
  #33  
Old 01-06-2012, 7:26 AM
goldrush goldrush is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 366
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This Nichols is interesting. It looks like he keeps his foot on the gas and doesn't accept 'no' or accommodation, qualities I typically admire in an advocate.

So SBOC wanted a permit scheme, and this ticked off Nichols? If so, I can understand his disgust, as running to the state, saying "license me and tax me so I can be free" does quite annoy the freedom-minded. To a person of that mind, the accommodators are as bad as the antis.

In thinking further about his suit, he does have one hell of a point in asking the court: "Why do I have to pay to exercise a right? The state has its LTC permits, which they rarely grant in Redondo, but those are irrelevant to my case. The 2A says I have RKBA; the USSC, in their grace, ratified this right. Rights can't be taxed. Where's my 2A right here in Redondo?"

In the end, this contempt of Nichols looks like a classic turf war.
  #34  
Old 01-06-2012, 7:41 AM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,861
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goldrush View Post
This Nichols is interesting.

Interesting? I guess so, if you consider a rash between your butt cheeks to be interesting....
__________________
  #35  
Old 01-06-2012, 7:45 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 5,986
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goldrush View Post
This Nichols is interesting. It looks like he keeps his foot on the gas and doesn't accept 'no' or accommodation, qualities I typically admire in an advocate.
.
.
.
In the end, this contempt of Nichols looks like a classic turf war.
No, it looks like some people mis-understand how you win a war.

If you want to win a war, you identify the order of battle, the terrain factors, the disposition of forces, the actual abilities and tendencies of your OPFOR, you maneuver for advantage and attack the weakness of the OPFOR with your strength.

Warriors who exhibit the qualities you admire just die valiantly and those who depended on them for protection suffer terribly.
  #36  
Old 01-06-2012, 7:52 AM
bebe67 bebe67 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 42
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

California's Handgun Open Carry Ban Sets The Record Straight
Share With Friends

13 2 Care20 2 Stumbleup1 Digg2 ShareThis23

The Unloaded Handgun Open Carry Ban Assembly Bill 144 which was passed by the California Legislature and signed into law by Governor Brown in 2011. The law applies not only to incorporated cities but throughout the county where the discharge of firearms is generally prohibited.

California has 58 counties. There may be some rural county in the state which does not have a general ban on the discharge of firearms but if you live in an urban county like Los Angeles, San Francisco and Orange Counties you are prohibited from openly carrying a handgun, be it loaded or unloaded; throughout the entire county.

There are a few misinformed so-called Open Carry advocates who have been falsely claiming that AB 144 has a lot of loopholes. It does not.

Unless you fall into one of the categories carved out for the special interest groups, such as bill collectors, repo-men and insurance adjusters; it is a crime to openly carry a handgun virtually everywhere in the state of California.

One such spokesperson claimed that simply being interviewed on camera by a reporter qualifies as an exemption under the law, it does not.

Although there are a large number of exemptions for openly carrying an unloaded handgun, these exemptions are all very narrowly drawn and you can be certain that California's police officers will not know what they are.

So even if one happens to be one of the very few people in this state who falls into one of the exempt categories, it does not mean that you won't be arrested or, at a minimum, unlawfully detained in handcuffs while the police try to figure out whether or not to book you.

AB 144 applies only to handguns. It is still legal to Openly Carry unloaded rifles and shotguns in non-prohibited areas. Prohibited areas include the area within 1,000 feet of a K-12 public or private school, unless one has written permission from the school.

Ironically, the so-called Gun Free School Zones which extend 1,000 feet from a school grounds are areas people are generally allowed to openly carry an unloaded firearm with matching ammunition, handguns included, if a person has written permission from the school.

Public K-12 schools are unlikely to grant permission but the thousands of private K-12 schools don't have the resources to defend themselves from lawsuits for not granting permission.

It won't be too long before that sole loophole is exploited by informed open carry activists. Public K-12 schools often have a private K-12 school nearby. A person does not need permission from both schools where the school zones overlap. Just the one is sufficient. Penal Code section 12031 - The Loaded Open Carry Ban The ban on openly carrying a loaded firearm in incorporated cities and in unincorporated areas of a county where the discharge of firearms is generally prohibited (i.e., everywhere in the county) was passed in 1967.

handgun
Photo Credit: WikiMedia Commons

The California Legislature thought they were passing a bill which would just disarm the Black Panther Party whose members were conducting what they called "Police Patrols."

The Black Panther Party members would monitor police radio calls and rush to the scene of arrests to confront police officers. They were armed with loaded firearms.

State Assemblyman Don Mulford introduced a bill to prevent such activities. On the day it was to be heard in committee, the Black Panther Party engaged in a spur of the moment publicity stunt. They marched into the state capitol openly bearing loaded firearms to protest the bill.

Needless to say, the bill sailed through both houses of the state legislature and was signed into law, as an emergency measure, two months later.

Today, the bill is used to prosecute everyone from openly carrying a loaded firearm in public, even hunters, which the then legislature bent over backwards to exclude from the law. The lawsuit to restore Loaded Open Carry to California A Federal Lawsuit has been filed seeking an injunction against California's ban on openly carrying a loaded firearm in public - California Penal Code section 12031.

An injunction against the law which makes it a crime to openly carry a loaded firearm in public will, of course, make California's ban on openly carrying an unloaded handgun meaningless.

The lawsuit was filed by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry .

Can States ban firearms from being Openly Carried? Both the United States Supreme Court and the California State Supreme Courts say "No!"

The Brady Center continues to spread its propaganda that the US Supreme Court's 2008 Heller decision guarantees only the right to keep a loaded firearm in one's home and the rest of the 64 page decision is meaningless.

A convicted felon and gang member, Peter Vongxay, made that same argument before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2009. In February of 2010 the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the US Supreme Court meant what it said about who may carry a firearm and the manner in which a firearm may be carried in public.

The US Supreme Court held that when carrying a firearm in public, it must be openly carried and that states may ban concealed carry if they wish.

Worse for Mr. Vongxay, the US Supreme Court also held that convicted felons do not have a constitutional right to even possess a firearm, let alone to carry one in public.

Since then, Federal Courts of Appeal from across the nation have come to the same conclusion in over 140 cases.

Since 1924, the California Courts have relied on a 1924 California State Supreme Court decision which also stated that a ban on openly carried firearms is unconstitutional.

Some reporters will continue to report the Brady Center propaganda as gospel. Hopefully, there will be a few who do a little fact checking first.

Fortunately, the question as to whether or not the California legislature can lawfully ban openly carried loaded firearms is now up to the Federal Courts to decide, which they have already done.

Judges can't issue injunctions on their own. Somebody has to file a lawsuit asking that an injunction be issued. Somebody has.

The leadership of the so-called gun rights groups such as the National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation and the CalGuns Foundation all oppose Open Carry. They believe that people should only be permitted to carry firearms concealed and only with government issued permission slips.

These groups brought two separate Federal lawsuits attempting to force California into issuing concealed carry permits. Both cases lost.

Why did they lose? For the same reasons mentioned above. Open Carry is the only constitutionally protected manner of carry under both the United States and California Constitutions according to the Supreme Courts for both the state and Federal governments.
  #37  
Old 01-06-2012, 7:54 AM
bebe67 bebe67 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 42
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

And no, I am not Mr. Nichols, just a supporter!!!!
  #38  
Old 01-06-2012, 7:58 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 5,986
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bebe67 View Post
California's Handgun Open Carry Ban Sets The Record Straight Screwy as Hell
Share With Friends
.
.
.
The leadership of the so-called gun rights groups such as the National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation and the CalGuns Foundation all oppose Open Carry. They believe that people should only be permitted to carry firearms concealed and only with government issued permission slips.
.
.
.
Why did they lose? For the same reasons mentioned above. Open Carry is the only constitutionally protected manner of carry under both the United States and California Constitutions according to the Supreme Courts for both the state and Federal governments.
What a crock!

And I wonder if the one about CGF opposing Open Carry isn't actually getting into libelous territory? At best it is stupidly ignorant.

Last edited by OleCuss; 01-06-2012 at 8:00 AM..
  #39  
Old 01-06-2012, 8:06 AM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

I'm sensing that we're dealing with unsophisticated shills.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
  #40  
Old 01-06-2012, 8:21 AM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,861
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
I'm sensing that we're dealing with unsophisticated shills.

-Brandon
Well, you are dealing with Charles Nichols admirers… Or possibly Charles Nichols himself, it is obvious that he holds himself in high regard...
__________________
Closed Thread

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 7:01 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.