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
  #41  
Old 07-14-2019, 1:54 AM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 360
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Again, the CCW/OC debate rages:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason....nalyzed/%3famp

“All 11 judges agreed that since the 1840s, American courts have interpreted the Second Amendment as allowing laws against the concealed carrying of arms. Heller itself said so, with approval. The majority opinion marshaled much precedent and scholarship in support of this point.”
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-14-2019, 8:06 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
Again, the CCW/OC debate rages:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason....nalyzed/%3famp

“All 11 judges agreed that since the 1840s, American courts have interpreted the Second Amendment as allowing laws against the concealed carrying of arms. Heller itself said so, with approval. The majority opinion marshaled much precedent and scholarship in support of this point.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sONfxPCTU0
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-14-2019, 12:33 PM
wchutt's Avatar
wchutt wchutt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Shasta County
Posts: 587
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Jeez, thanks a lot, just sprayed Corona through my nose...
__________________
“Further evasions will be deleted ETA as off-topic for the thread.
Either participate or remain silent.” -Librarian
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-14-2019, 2:56 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 10,220
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
...[1]...Again, the CCW/OC debate rages:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason....nalyzed/%3famp

...[2]...“All 11 judges agreed that since the 1840s, American courts have interpreted the Second Amendment as allowing laws against the concealed carrying of arms....[3]... Heller itself said so, with approval. The majority opinion marshaled much precedent and scholarship in support of this point.”
[1]...An will continue to debate the subject until it is actually ruled upon by SCOTUS. And maybe even after a SCOTUS Ruling. Many SCOTUS rulings finding issues Constitutional. Were later appealed and reversed by SCOTUS.

[2]...Those 11 Judges were in the 9th Circus, not SCOTUS.

[3]...As previously stated and ignored by the OC advocates. SCOTUS judges 'mentioning' prior cases during discussions as to their individual opinions. Is not "RULING FOR OR AGAINST" the constitutionality of the subject case.

EXAMPLES.

Ginsburg discussing that her opinion that "And Bear Arms". Includes doing so on ones person for defense including when they are concealed by clothing. Is no more Constitutionally binding than. The "six" items in this quote. From this link.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0578.htm

The Second Amendment right is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful,” according to the Court. These include laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” (5) prohibit “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, and Thomas.

Anyone claiming that SCOTUS has already determined that OC is RULED a protected RIGHT. And CCW was not ruled a protected right.

PLEASE EXPLAIN, why all OC bans in every state that has them. Isn't already stricken.

YOU CAN"T! because NEITHER ever happened.

Quote:
Dicta. The plural form of dictum. A statement of opinion or belief considered authoritative because of the dignity of the person making it.
Quote:
ruling
The official decision a court makes is a ruling.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-14-2019, 11:10 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 10,220
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
...and Ginsburg was providing a definition of bear/carry, not an argument for concealed carry.
Correct
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-22-2019, 6:17 AM
mcbair mcbair is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 148
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

First hearing on Sept 6, courtroom 3, at 10am. Please arrive between 8:30 and nine. We are asking for your support. please attend the hearing if it is possible to do so. The more people the better. Courtroom three is a smaller room and many will not get inside but hopefully the crowd will fill the building and spill out into the street. The address for the Court is 501 I Street, Sacramento CA. Afterward, depending upon crowd size, we may march to the Capital Building to let the liars and criminals who think they rule over us that our Liberty is not theirs for the taking. We can take our state back from the felons in Sacramento in the blink of an eye if we would only stand and be counted. It matters that you stand! it matters how you stand! Busses are being organized from the Jefferson Counties. Call your Jefferson Committee chair to help set up car pools or what ever you can. soj51.org has the list of committee chairs if you don’t know yours. If you are a truck owner, and you can, drive around the courthouse with a flag out the window for an hour or so. I was in Salem for the demonstration that stopped cap and trade in a democrat controlled state. Thousands of people, over seven hundred trucks circling the capital building........The legislators abandoned the building. They won because the people stood for something. We can do the same. For over a century there was nothing illegal about carrying a weapon for defense in California. We did it every day and no one said a word. Will we be the generation who squandered the gifts given us by God? Will we be the generation who squandered the gifts our fathers and fore fathers purchased for us with their blood? I will be wearing my pistol holster with a pocket Constitution inside. Whether you personally agree with the allegations of this particular case or not, it is an avenue to restore Liberty. Gun owners and freedom loving people all over California could use a victory over tyranny. It matters how you stand!
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-22-2019, 7:04 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,877
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Good luck guys! Please include Solano county in the SOJ... At least the east half.
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg


John 14:6

Last edited by sfpcservice; 07-22-2019 at 7:11 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-22-2019, 2:24 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbair View Post
First hearing on Sept 6, courtroom 3, at 10am. Please arrive between 8:30 and nine. We are asking for your support. please attend the hearing if it is possible to do so. The more people the better. Courtroom three is a smaller room and many will not get inside but hopefully the crowd will fill the building and spill out into the street. The address for the Court is 501 I Street, Sacramento CA. Afterward, depending upon crowd size, we may march to the Capital Building to let the liars and criminals who think they rule over us that our Liberty is not theirs for the taking. We can take our state back from the felons in Sacramento in the blink of an eye if we would only stand and be counted. It matters that you stand! it matters how you stand! Busses are being organized from the Jefferson Counties. Call your Jefferson Committee chair to help set up car pools or what ever you can. soj51.org has the list of committee chairs if you don’t know yours. If you are a truck owner, and you can, drive around the courthouse with a flag out the window for an hour or so. I was in Salem for the demonstration that stopped cap and trade in a democrat controlled state. Thousands of people, over seven hundred trucks circling the capital building........The legislators abandoned the building. They won because the people stood for something. We can do the same. For over a century there was nothing illegal about carrying a weapon for defense in California. We did it every day and no one said a word. Will we be the generation who squandered the gifts given us by God? Will we be the generation who squandered the gifts our fathers and fore fathers purchased for us with their blood? I will be wearing my pistol holster with a pocket Constitution inside. Whether you personally agree with the allegations of this particular case or not, it is an avenue to restore Liberty. Gun owners and freedom loving people all over California could use a victory over tyranny. It matters how you stand!

Good luck Mark!!!
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-30-2019, 1:03 PM
mcbair mcbair is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 148
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Opposition to State’s Motion to dismiss filed

Our Opposition to the State’s Motion to dismiss was filed last night. Hearing still on for Friday September 6th at 10 am. 501 I Street, Sacramento, CA. Courtroom 3. States opposition to our P.I. Due in three days. Judge Muller is a democratic operative. Former Sac city councilwoman, a buddy of Daryl Steinberg. All we can do is pray there is intellectual honesty present in this court, but if not we will not quit. This is the avenue open to us and we will see where it leads.
Please attend if you can. It matters that we stand!
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-30-2019, 8:29 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

opposition filed

https://www.scribd.com/document/4203...osition-to-MTD
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 07-31-2019, 1:01 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,441
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Not being a lawyer I'll happily admit that I didn't fully understand everything in that and I certainly did not look up all those cited rulings.

But it appears to be well-written and was surprisingly enjoyable to read through that.

Thank you for the great work!
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that).
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 07-31-2019, 3:41 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
Not being a lawyer I'll happily admit that I didn't fully understand everything in that and I certainly did not look up all those cited rulings.

But it appears to be well-written and was surprisingly enjoyable to read through that.

Thank you for the great work!
Sorry if I was unclear. This case is being litigated by Amy Bellantoni website here
https://bellantoni-law.com/

I just am posting her work for everyone to see.

Please note that Amy lives in New York and just travel costs alone are expensive. Both Amy and Mark are real patriots that are taking a lot of time out of their lives to fight for our rights. We all need to chip in. Here is a link to their donation page.

https://tokeepandbear.com/index.php/...he-law-suit-2/
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-01-2019, 8:08 AM
Wrangler John Wrangler John is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,798
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Open Carry

While I am reluctant to post on such issues, the outcome of which will resemble divination through the casting of runes as much as judicial prudence, my concern regards what would happen if the suit were to be successful.

Back before 1968 I carried openly, but had a concealed weapons permit, which at the time allowed open carrying. There was little clamor or confusion as I went about my business, and I was never challenged by law enforcement. Indeed, when I was enrolled in an evening pre-apprentice machinist class at the local high school, I brought a surplus barreled rifle action as a project. Try that today. While the counties mentioned may be more insensitive to open carry, much of the state where a person is openly packing a firearm will likely cause law enforcement agencies to descend on that individual with every SWAT resource available. Open carry today, in my opinion, in most locations, will be problematic and outright hazardous to the carrier. In my time, I carried openly when night surf fishing, camping, varmint hunting, or traveling long distances alone, which didn't set off alarm bells, the rest of the time I carried concealed. It is my opinion that Michel & Associates has the correct track on the subject.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-02-2019, 12:42 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The State of California filed its opposition to Mark's preliminary injunction



https://www.scribd.com/document/4205...ction-by-State

https://www.scribd.com/document/4205...-Donahue-Study

https://www.scribd.com/document/4205...ec-Chief-Raney
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08-02-2019, 1:48 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,422
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Discussion of NRA and Michel & Associates results moved to a new thread - off topic in a thread about a specific case.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1549876

ANNOUNCEMENT
This thread is about the specific case.

We are not going to re-litigate Heller here, or in any other thread, until and unless the Supreme Court of the United States revisits it.

Knock it off.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.




Last edited by Librarian; 08-02-2019 at 1:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08-02-2019, 2:15 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Discussion of NRA and Michel & Associates results moved to a new thread - off topic in a thread about a specific case.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1549876

ANNOUNCEMENT
This thread is about the specific case.

We are not going to re-litigate Heller here, or in any other thread, until and unless the Supreme Court of the United States revisits it.

Knock it off.
thank you I spend a good deal of time keeping all these threads updated. Its annoying when they get derailed
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 08-08-2019, 5:22 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default




http://tokeepandbear.com/index.php/2...XIy9Rgy-y1FXp8

The 2nd Amendment lawsuit filed against California was filed in Federal Court. Mark Baird et al v Becerra alleges deprivation of rights and statutory bans on the open carry of loaded weapon. The complaint states the the Second Amendment gives the citizens nothing except freedom from government interference. The 2nd simply codifies the per-constitutional, Natural Right of every lawful person to defend ones self, family, community and state and nation.

There are only 2 ways to carry…..Open or concealed. If Concealed is not a right , then as the Complaint alleges….open carry must be the core the Right protected by the 2nd Amendment, and the statues which ban the open carry of a loaded weapon or unloaded handgun are Unconstitutional.

We the people have the Right to bear arms and Right shall not be infringed. The US Constitution tells us so in unequivocally plain language.The Right extend to bearing arms in public. We know this because a well regulated militia could not possibly be an effective from behind bedroom curtains, and for the State to oppose this theory flies in the face of history.Self Defense may be required when and wherever the individual happens to be. All the news is good for our case. Our cause is just. The complaint is a straight Constitutional challenge. the generous support of the Jefferson Counties make the case financially possible. We can afford, with your continued support, to take this as far as we need to go.

WHere do you stand? What do you stand for? Do you have a line in the sand? If so, what is it? It matters that you stand for something. As Patrick Henry said, ” I know not what course other may take, but for me, give me Liberty or give me death!.”
Mark Baird.
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 08-17-2019, 9:21 AM
mcbair mcbair is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 148
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The state cherry picks a regulation here and there from here and there showing that other states or cities have violated the Constitution by prohibiting open carry. They have a big problem though. When Spain owned Alta California.....no prohibitions on weapons carry. Thirty years of Mexican rule pre California......no prohibitions on weapons carry. 1849-1967 in California.....no prohibition on the open carry of a loaded weapon. Anyone could openly carry a loaded weapon and go anywhere you wanted including into the State Capital. Why were ALL Californians stripped of their Second Amendment guarantees? Answer, to teach 20 +/- Black Panthers a lesson. For well over a century, there was no prohibition to the open carry of weapons in our state. California has painted themselves into a corner. Sept, 6, 10 am Sacramento Federal Courthouse. Wear your empty pistol holster with a pocket Constitution inside.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 08-17-2019, 4:26 PM
big red big red is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,234
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

You might want to highlight that September date and the information attached to it. A lot of people could miss it.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-18-2019, 6:35 AM
wchutt's Avatar
wchutt wchutt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Shasta County
Posts: 587
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default



// Indeed.
//
// Not needed here.
//
// Librarian
__________________
“Further evasions will be deleted ETA as off-topic for the thread.
Either participate or remain silent.” -Librarian

Last edited by Librarian; 08-18-2019 at 10:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 08-18-2019, 10:15 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,212
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It seems the latest angle from briefs in New York case is that left wants to twist “corpus” linguistics to show that at the time 2A was written keep indeed meant own, but bear actually meant not carry daily, but only in the context of military service (bear arms against). If Dems take control again and pack court, watch Heller get rewritten in that way.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 08-18-2019, 8:15 PM
mcbair mcbair is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 148
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

September, 6th....501 I Street, Sacramento CA. Please arrive in plenty of time. Court begins at 10am. If you are going to take part in the rally, we are asking you to wear an empty pistol holster with a pocket Constitution placed in it. Not all will get into the Court room. Courtroom 3 is a smaller room. California claims the Second Amendment has never protected the Rights of lawful individuals to openly carry a weapon. Their claim flies in the face of the history of this nation, and the history of the human race. The Second Amendment guarantees the God given, individual, pre-governmental Right to defense of self, family, community, state, and nation. The Second gives us nothing except the freedom from government interference. Stand with us. Stand for something. “Liberty must, at all hazard, be supported. You have a right to it derived from your maker. But if we had not, our fathers had earned and bought it for us at the expense of their ease, their estates, their blood, and their treasure.” John Adams
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 08-29-2019, 8:12 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The hearing is now scheduled for 10/8:

Quote:
MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy C. Schultz for District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller: On the court's own motion, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference and Motion Hearing as to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF Nos.10 and14 ) set for 9/6/2019 is VACATED and RESET for 10/8/2019 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3 before District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Motion related briefing deadlines are reset as provided by Local Rule 230. The parties shall file a joint status report no less than seven days prior to the new date of the status conference. (Text Only Entry) (Schultz, C)
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 08-30-2019, 4:25 AM
mcbair mcbair is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 148
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Rally to be held on Sep 6

Judge Muller has moved hearing date to September 8, but rally will go on as planned. Please attend if you can. Nothing has changed except the judge’s attempt to make sure no one attends the hearing. 10 am, 501 I Street, Sacramento. Please wear empty pistol holster with pocket Constitution inside.
Stand for something....it matters. Please make plans to attend the hearing on October 10. When our next round of filings is complete it will be plain that California is engaged in a campaign to strip YOU of your unalienable rights and are willing to lie to do it.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 08-30-2019, 5:15 PM
mcbair mcbair is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 148
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

correction to last post. I intended to say hearing moved to October 8. Sorry for the confusion.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 09-09-2019, 9:16 PM
mcbair mcbair is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 148
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

2A rally on Court steps was a success. Several hundred people including a busloads from Shasta, and Tehama Counties. Our final filings due Oct 1. Please plan to attend the hearing on the 8th. I pray the other litigants succeed. George Young, Attorney Alan Beck, Charles Nichols acting on his own. All of you with the courage to Stand. May God Bless you and give you success! Liberty first, Liberty always......without Liberty, the state will not let you keep your money or your property.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 10-01-2019, 4:40 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

California filed its reply brief in Mark Baird's Open carry case today
https://www.scribd.com/document/4283...ion-to-Dismiss
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 10-02-2019, 5:42 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,877
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbair View Post
2A rally on Court steps was a success. Several hundred people including a busloads from Shasta, and Tehama Counties. Our final filings due Oct 1. Please plan to attend the hearing on the 8th. I pray the other litigants succeed. George Young, Attorney Alan Beck, Charles Nichols acting on his own. All of you with the courage to Stand. May God Bless you and give you success! Liberty first, Liberty always......without Liberty, the state will not let you keep your money or your property.
Very Nice!
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg


John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 10-03-2019, 10:09 PM
mcbair mcbair is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 148
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Final motions filed. The first hearing is Oct 8th, 10 am in Courtroom 3.
Please attend if it is at all possible to do so. Public support can influence outcomes. The state has painted itself into a corner thanks to all of the Liberty minded groups and individuals who have ongoing cases. They have mis-represented case law. They have shown themselves to be tyrants and liars in their filings. The state admits that they have intentionally prevented the bulk of lawful individuals from exercising Second Amendment guarantees. They admit they have intentionally perverted a right into a permission and they also admit no such permission has ever been granted since the inception of the so called open carry permit. The state claims that long standing history and long standing prohibitions on open carry make this all legal. The felons who run California have a big problem though. None of it is true! For well over 164 years, since long before California was a state there have been few or no restrictions against open carry in California. The prohibition against open carry of loaded and finally unloaded weapons are constructs of the state and are fleeting when compared with the long history of open carry in California. Their arguments are weak. Their expert witnesses are weak. The state’s main thrust is to blame lawful citizens for that which we cannot and should not be blamed.....the actions of criminals. They want to hold 39 million people responsible for the fact the a small percentage of our population wishes to harm or rob the rest of us. The government will not and cannot protect you. The liars and crooks who own this state want to make sure that YOU cannot protect yourselves or your families. Stand with us! I will not submit!
Mark Baird

Last edited by mcbair; 10-03-2019 at 10:14 PM.. Reason: Addition of punctuation
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 10-04-2019, 3:31 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,847
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I've read the State's brief. It sounds good but is full of holes, the biggest one being that the State denies that there is a well-recognized right, guaranteed by the Second Amendment, not just to keep arms but to bear them as well, as specifically noted (but not held) in Heller. By doing so, the State claims that Plaintiff's causes of action are subject to very little deference.

To ask another question: Does the recognition of a right to an open carry permit that is good in all counties avoid the GFSZA? A CCW is exempt, but I don't know about open carry permits. Nichols specifically avoided the question in his case, but it is a central issue. Without such a right under the permit, it is literally impossible to open carry in any incorporated city, town or village.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 10-04-2019, 4:14 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 10,220
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
I've read the State's brief. It sounds good but is full of holes, the biggest one being that the State denies that there is a well-recognized right, guaranteed by the Second Amendment, not just to keep arms but to bear them as well, as specifically noted (but not held) in Heller. By doing so, the State claims that Plaintiff's causes of action are subject to very little deference.

To ask another question: Does the recognition of a right to an open carry permit that is good in all counties avoid the GFSZA? A CCW is exempt, but I don't know about open carry permits. Nichols specifically avoided the question in his case, but it is a central issue. Without such a right under the permit, it is literally impossible to open carry in any incorporated city, town or village.
So in essence the state is claiming that the 2A doesn't say, what the 2A says.

Quote:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Which is already affirmed in Heller, McDonald, and Caetano.

Not much of a winning strategy to base your support premise on already disproved claims.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 10-04-2019, 6:21 PM
mcbair mcbair is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 148
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

26150 and 26155 (b)(2) permits for open carry, although none have ever been issued are constructed under the same statute as CCW with two major exceptions. First (b)(2) permits are only available in counties with less than 200 thousand people. Second (b)(2) permits are only valid in the issuing county. The state argues that (b)(2) permits satisfy the core requirements of Second Amendment guarantees. This is merely one of the lies in the states filings. None have ever been issued. One would have to live in and apply in all 58 counties at once. Most counties couldn’t issue based on population. So you would have to sprout wings to go from one lawful jurisdiction to another to avoid arrest. The state’s case is a house of cards which has been protected from the hurricane of Liberty by the Ninth Circuit. The winds are changing.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 10-07-2019, 9:08 AM
mcbair mcbair is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 148
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

First Hearing tomorrow! Tuesday October 8th, 501 I Street, Sacramento CA at 10am in Court room three. Important to fill the courtroom. Please attend if possible. The State admits to denial of Second Amendment for the vast majority of lawful citizens. The State admits that its denial of Rights is interest balancing, ( to maintain order over lawful individuals because crooks don’t obey laws). The State admits it has given the authority over whether you may exercise Second Amendment Guarantees to “Sheriffs and police chiefs”. In my Public Records Act request, the State admits that not one sheriff, nor one single police chief has ever issued “permission” to anyone to exercise The pre-governmental Right to Self Defense. Scalia said the Constitution is not an empty jug to be filled by each succeeding generation. Judges are to uphold laws as they were written giving utmost consideration to the plain meaning as the authors intended, in the language in which it was written. While the Fourth Amendment, “ unreasonable search” may well require interpretation, the phrase “shall not be infringed” requires none!

Stand with us tomorrow. It matters that you stand!
Mark Baird

Last edited by mcbair; 10-07-2019 at 9:10 AM.. Reason: Add a phrase
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 10-08-2019, 3:21 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy C. Schultz for District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller: Due to unforseen circumstances and on the court's own motion, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference and Motion Hearing set for 10/8/2019 is VACATED and RESET for 10/9/2019 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 3 before District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Text Only Entry)(Schultz, C) (Entered: 10/08/2019)
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 10-09-2019, 3:39 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

MINUTES for MOTION HEARING and SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held before District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/9/2019. Plaintiffs' Counsel, Amy Bellantoni, present. Defendant's Counsel, R. Matthew Wise, present. The court heard oral argument as to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF no. 10 ) and Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 14 ). The court and counsel also discussed case scheduling. After careful consideration of the parties' arguments, the court took the matters under submission. A written order will issue. Court Reporter: Kacy Barajas. (Text Only Entry) (Schultz, C) (Entered: 10/09/2019)
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 10-09-2019, 4:59 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,877
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

13 more days...
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg


John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 10-09-2019, 5:32 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://www.courthousenews.com/calif...-restrictions/

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) – Emboldened by a string of recent favorable federal court rulings, gun rights advocates now aim to overturn California’s longstanding open-carry laws.

Two men from rural Northern California counties say they’ve been denied open-carry permits by local authorities and can’t even begin to start the application process because the state doesn’t give sheriffs the necessary forms. They believe California’s laws, which require applicants to demonstrate “good cause,” amount to a de facto ban and note that the state hasn’t issued an open-carry license since the law went into effect in 2012.

On Wednesday, the two men argued in federal court that the public safety laws infringe on their constitutional and “God-given” right to travel and be in public with loaded firearms.

“The state has taken a broad-brush approach and banned the right to bear arms,” said Amy Bellantoni, attorney for plaintiffs Mark Baird and Richard Gallardo.

The Siskiyou and Shasta county residents sued California Attorney General Xavier Becerra this past April in federal court, claiming the state laws violate the Second and Fourth amendments.

Their case, and several others, could impact California and the few remaining states that restrict or prohibit the open carrying of firearms. California is one of five states that prohibit carrying guns in public, as do Florida, Illinois, New York, South Carolina and the District of Columbia.

While California law does allow counties with fewer than 200,000 residents to issue open-carry permits, it leaves the decision up to local police chiefs and sheriffs. The plaintiffs say the population requirement is unfair and that the law gives local law enforcement too much discretion.

Under the law, local law enforcement “may issue” an open-carry permit if the applicant is of “good moral character” and “good cause” exists.

During a court hearing Wednesday in downtown Sacramento, the state’s lawyers said California’s open-carry laws are “firmly rooted in history” and enacted to protect public safety. They argued that the Second Amendment doesn’t give Americans an “unconditional right” to carry guns in plain view and cite the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v. Heller.

Matthew Wise, deputy attorney general, told the court that the plaintiffs’ lawsuit is an “overreach” and called two of their declarations “misleading and false.”

California has enacted some of the nation’s strictest gun laws over the decades, but many are being challenged in federal courtrooms. Groups are currently challenging open-carry, magazine capacities, ammunition background check and age-based restrictions.

The open-carry lawsuit was filed just days after a gun rights advocates scored a major victory when a federal judge tossed California’s voter-approved ban on high-capacity gun magazines over 10 rounds.

“The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down pillows and foam baseball bats. It protects guns and every gun is dangerous,” U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote.

In addition, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled in July 2018 that carrying guns in public is a constitutional right. The court shortly after decided to revisit the decision and announced an en banc hearing. The court has since stayed the hearing pending an opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York.

The Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear the New York case in December, setting up its first gun-rights case since Heller in 2008.

U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller acknowledged the high-profile cases pending in higher courts could impact the Sacramento case, and asked whether the plaintiffs were “laying the foundation” for another.

“It’s hard not to see this as one of those cases,” Mueller said.

The judge, a Barack Obama appointee, asked the plaintiffs’ lawyer to explain how California’s process is denying access to open-carry permits.

“There is no procedure, that’s the problem,” responded Bellantoni. “The statutes provide no procedure.”

Bellantoni claims the state doesn’t provide sheriffs forms or information regarding open-carry permits even if they wanted to issue one, and called the population requirement subjective.

Mueller said she would issue a written order on both motions as quickly as she can and raised the possibility that she may stay the case pending the related matters. Baird and Gallardo seek a preliminary injunction and while the state seeks dismissal.
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 10-10-2019, 11:15 AM
mcbair mcbair is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 148
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Judge Muller asked, Aren’t all lawful individuals capable of jaywalking? Judge followed up with,(paraphrase) who might not be included in a category of lawful individuals......our attorney answered, Felons, those adjudicated to be mentally defective, violent domestic abusers......my words now, criminals.

State contends ban on open carry, is long standing, five years. Our declaration which the state says is false and misleading.....open carry largely unremarkable and vastly unregulated in California for 164 years.

The Judge asked whether we considered California law a “de facto ban”, our response was no. Not de facto, it is a Ban, period.

Ms Bellantoni cautioned both the judge and the state not to use the terms “public Carry”, or “Concealed Carry”. All carry is public! In your home it is “keep”, outside the home it is “Bear”, and the Constitution says in very clear terms that the Right shall not be infringed! She cautioned that concealed carry is not a Right, it is not part of our suit, and to try to conflate concealed carry into some vague reference to public carry is disengenious. Two ways to carry....concealed isn’t a right, therefore open carry must be. Open carry is banned in all counties by penal code 25850, 26400, and 26350. Immediate defense exception is an affirmative defense not a right to carry. Open carry in rural counties has never been permitted one single time, therefore not a right. Open carry in rural counties, is banned by the many hurdles assigned to the same regs that define concealed carry. In addition, to geographic and population restrictions, no method of appeal, show good cause to a single state agent, who will never issue anyway...the totality of circumstances IS A BAN.

In my humble opinion, the judge cannot find grounds to dismiss, and she tried to find that opening, by spoon feeding the states attorney. We will have dismissal on the dormant commerce clause allegation,( just my hunch, it was a throw away to give the judge something to dismiss anyway), but I, at least am confident the 2nd, 4th, and 14th claims will survive.

The P.I.? Who knows? Somehow cannot imagine a judge who is dyed in the wool blue, going back to her social circle to explain why she allowed Second Amendment guarantees in the Socialist Republic of California, but if she does not grant, we will appeal the P.I., we expected to do this. And who knows, God is in charge, the case is pretty strong. We are prepared to go up the ladder all the way to USSC, but maybe won’t need to. Thank you sincerely to all those who support this effort. Www.tokeepandbear if you can contribute, or just want an update. Thank you Alan, thank you to Charles Nichols and several others who traveled from SoCal only to be told fifteen minutes before court that the judge called in sick. Our Attorney did a great job, I think this is looking pretty good!
Mark Baird

Last edited by mcbair; 10-10-2019 at 11:53 AM.. Reason: Additional information.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 10-10-2019, 4:33 PM
wchutt's Avatar
wchutt wchutt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Shasta County
Posts: 587
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Well said Mark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q77g...8O6hCogfcLQ2u4
__________________
“Further evasions will be deleted ETA as off-topic for the thread.
Either participate or remain silent.” -Librarian
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 10-11-2019, 10:44 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wchutt View Post
You just have to give it to Mark. He is a good spokesperson for us. He is both very well spoken and sincere.
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
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 5:49 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy