Nichols Vs. Newsom (was Brown) update...

[gunsandrockets]

Originally Posted by Paladin

#1 You can move to a county in CA that readily issues:


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

If: (1) Trump does not win, and (2) STOP the mass migration into the USA (both legal & illegal), and (3) DEPORT all the illegals (incl anchor babies and their families) (no, we will not charge them for all the "free stuff" they got while here (free med care, free maternity care, free ER visits, free K-12, instate college tuition, welfare $$$, free public housing/Sec 8, etc), and (4) build a real Wall for real border security ASAP it is Game Over for us and the USA. Period. We'll go via Merkel's Germany to Brazil/Venezuela...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS3612EIcF4

There is much very wrong about your analysis

First off moving to one of less anti-gun counties of California will only get me a CCW permit. All the other anti-gun laws of Commiefornia still apply. And even that only concerns the legal status quo. Which brings me to...

Trends.

Your consideration of trends is faulty.

What we have going on in our nation is the trend of gun-control laws moving in OPPOSITE directions, all depending upon WHICH state you look at. California is example #1 of things getting worse and even an acceleration in the near future. Arizona is an example of the exact opposite, where weapon laws are getting better.

Who wins the final nationwide contest is unknowable, and that result is possibly decades away. I hope the right side will win out. And one reason why the right side might win is because of this ever increasing DIVISION between the States.

The contrast between the failure of the Blue State model and the success of the Red State model is something which I think will finally convince a national majority, especially when it comes to gun-control laws.

But in the meantime those poor bastards unlucky enough to live in a Blue State will only see things getting worse for them. Possibly for decades. Even a best case scenario only sees relief five years away from now.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by gunsandrockets

First off moving to one of less anti-gun counties of California will only get me a CCW permit. All the other anti-gun laws of Commiefornia still apply. And even that only concerns the legal status quo.

Foolish me to think you were keeping your post On Topic in a thread about Carrying....

Originally Posted by gunsandrockets

Trends.

Your consideration of trends is faulty.

What we have going on in our nation is the trend of gun-control laws moving in OPPOSITE directions, all depending upon WHICH state you look at. California is example #1 of things getting worse and even an acceleration in the near future. Arizona is an example of the exact opposite, where weapon laws are getting better.

You ignore the most important trend of all: the replacement of the American people. Or you assume that non-Americans come here not to make more money while being "themselves," but rather to change their beliefs and behaviors to adopt the American way of life, culture, laws & political philosophies.

The trends of our gun laws are minor compared to the replacement of the voting population from people who, primarily, either descended from the founding stock of this nation OR from other religiously and culturally similar nations, to people from nations that have neither the same or similar religious beliefs nor cultural practices. Sure, they can memorize answers to basic questions about American history or our Constitution (if they came here legally and if they pass a citizenship test), but that is nothing compared to being raised by Americans and in America.

Look at what has happened to California as whites have become a smaller and smaller percent of the voting population. Bullet button bans and a TON more. Where are all the pro-RKBA non-whites stepping up to "stand in the gap"? Sure, there are many on CGN, but I'm talking about out of the entire population of CA. Most just don't value it much because it wasn't part of their "birthright" in their homelands. It's not a "Give me liberty or give me death!" "molon labe" issue for most of them.

Look to the nations they came from to see what culture and beliefs they're adulterating America with....

I've added bolding and underling to this quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyca

the growing minority population. Eighty-one percent of Georgia's population growth in the past decade is due to an increase in the minority population.

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/05/1...stat/21377638/

Here is the dailykos where liberals talk about how they are going to win due to white attrition and huge growth in non white populations. It's ironic, the republicans handed the democrats this win by their love of cheap labor, Regan's 1986 amnesty and by making abortions harder to come by in these states.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/3...t-Twenty-Years

Tons of data and prof that the left has been anticipating this for years.

https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...ate-1980-2060/

Many of these populations have over a 90% democratic voting rate and have massive percentages of anti gun voters. It's not a question of if but when Arizona, Texas, Georgia and North Carolina go blue, it's mathematically impossible for them to not go blue.

Once Texas is lost, there will never be another republican president.

The house and senate will be majority blue in time.

We know that for the first time in history, a major party nominee has shown their hand as openly anti gun and is actually campaigning on an anti gun platform. Even Obama pretended he didn't really care about guns. Hillary will be an absolute disaster with federal judge appointments and when this time bomb of demographics explodes, we will have no hope in the courts.

There are strange pockets of blue states (or purple) (Oergon, Washington, Montana, New Hampshire, Vermont) that are pro gun or not terrible for gun rights but none of them have these high non white populations.

The moral of this story, find a way to turn non whites into vehemently pro gun voters or you can kiss your gun rights goodbye for ever.

You can run but you can't hide from this demographic time bomb.

Originally Posted by gunsandrockets

Who wins the final nationwide contest is unknowable, and that result is possibly decades away.

No, if Hillary wins on Nov 8th, we will know that, as Obama promised -- and Hillary promised to be his 3rd term -- the America created by those "old, dead white men" will be fundamentally "Change"d!!! That includes all of whites' institutionally racist, "White privilege" enhancing laws & policies that have no place in a new and evolved, diverse and multicultural America! The oppression of the non-whites under laws made by white politicians, enforced by white policemen, used by white judges to imprison and by white prison guards (modern day slave masters), shall end! The People shall entrust their safety and well being to a new, diverse, multicultural "peace force" so the People will have no need for private ownership or possession of guns. (much less carrying them in public!)/sarcasm

So, if Hillary wins on Nov 8th, we will know that, barring some miracle, the USA is lost, it has inflicted a death blow upon itself, it will be only a matter of time until it becomes Brazil/Venezuela....

Originally Posted by gunsandrockets

I hope the right side will win out. And one reason why the right side might win is because of this ever increasing DIVISION between the States.

Sorry, but once whites are a minority in a state, that's it: the "free stuff" party gets a monopoly on power and the serfs, er, DREAMERs trade "their liberty (RKBA) for security" (welfare, free Obamaphones)....

If they want a gun, they'll just break the law and buy one illegally, like they did in their home country. Our judges and police will become as corrupt as those in their mother countries.

Originally Posted by gunsandrockets

Mexico is a great example of a lawless oligarchy. And a warning of where the US is headed.

Of course all kinds of people own guns in Mexico, mostly outside the law.

All those paramilitary militias springing up in the Mexican countryside to resist crime and fight the drug cartels? All of them are in violation of Mexican law.

Within Mexican law, there is still some legal gun ownership. Mostly by the police, private security agencies and the rich. Not so many by average ordinary Mexican citizens.

The vast majority of guns in Mexico are illegal.

Originally Posted by gunsandrockets

The contrast between the failure of the Blue State model and the success of the Red State model is something which I think will finally convince a national majority, especially when it comes to gun-control laws.

You are confused. Most "gun control laws" are at the state level (OC/CCWs, suppressors, SBRs, AW, MGs). A "national majority" cannot do anything to directly repeal/change those state laws.

Originally Posted by gunsandrockets

But in the meantime those poor bastards unlucky enough to live in a Blue State will only see things getting worse for them. Possibly for decades. Even a best case scenario only sees relief five years away from now.

Like I said, unless Trump wins and carries through on his immigration reform promises, the entire USA "progressively" goes the way of CA, where there is not 1 GOP statewide office holder and the GOP cannot stop anything the Dems or antis really want.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1229955

If you want to debate this some more, please start a new thread in the appropriate forum and PM a link to it to me so that I will see it. Thx

/Off Topic

Back to Nichols' OC case....

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Originally Posted by danez71

Could you please provide reference for me.

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


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

Paraphrasing, IMO,

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

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

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

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


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

Heller was actually pretty clear on the subject. Where? When they quoted Nunn v State (AKA, Nunn v Georgia). In the 1840s, Georgia outlawed BOTH methods of "and bear." Mr Nunn was convicted and appealed, eventually reaching the GA Supreme Court. That Court Ruled, that far from what you see from lawyers on our side (who should know better), that it was NOT a matter of 'some form of carry must be allowed' that guided their Ruling. The GA Supremes stated quite clearly that ONLY LOC is the Protected Right. From Heller:

Originally Posted by Heller

In Nunn v. State, 1Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:

“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”

And later:

Originally Posted by Heller

Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District’s handgun ban. And some of those few have been struck down. In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251.

(Emphasis mine)

Reading Nunn in its entirety is highly recommended. There you will see how the GA Supremes reached their Ruling. And enable you to see that our strategy of trying to make CCW the Protected Right was doomed from the start. And that maintaining that strategy after we were shot down the first time we tried it was foolish. Staying with that strategy now, when we've been shot down is inane. Mr Nichols is an egomaniac. He has 'perfected' hubris to a degree not often seen. Which ain't a good thing in a litigator. But he has the basic facts of the matter right. Which is more than can be said for Mr Gura and all the other "right people."

Fortunately, We The People aren't dependent upon the ability of Mr Nichols to have the Right restored.

Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero

I have one other fun prediction.

Mr. Nichols requests for stays will extend a decision in his case beyond other similar cases on open carry, his case will not be the "famous" case that wins open carry.

He will not be Miranda, or Gideon, or Brown, he will be forgotten in a sea of other cases like Baker and Flanagan, and Wrenn, etc. that get there first.

And he will be like that old pirate at the bar that tells a salty sea story of when he once sailed with Captain Jack Sparrow......

So, THE case to watch is covered elsewhere in this forum: Norman v State (AKA Norman v Florida). Here, the attorneys are VERY good at what they do. In that they have correctly read Heller and it's citation of Nunn. Which means that are using the Rulings from Circuits 2/3/4 and ESPECIALLY 10 (and now, Peruta) in support of their efforts. And, in a move that utterly astonished me, the NRA filed an amicus Brief that was entirely supportive.

True, it's still at the state level, while Mr Nichols is about to go in front of the 9th Circuit. But state Supreme Court rulings are frequently appealed directly to SCOTUS, which would put Norman ahead in the race to SCOTUS. With a little luck, the Fla Supremes will do what their job and their oaths require, and we'll have a Ruling that restores "and bear" to its rightful place in Constitutional law.


The Raisuli

[lowimpactuser]

Mulay, stop posting.

You're competing with KC for "posters I agree with and who bring new insight to the discussion, but I desperately want to be wrong".

If Nichols could be nicer he'd be much further ahead.

Sigh.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli

Heller was actually pretty clear on the subject. Where? When they quoted Nunn v State (AKA, Nunn v Georgia). In the 1840s, Georgia outlawed BOTH methods of "and bear." Mr Nunn was convicted and appealed, eventually reaching the GA Supreme Court. That Court Ruled, that far from what you see from lawyers on our side (who should know better), that it was NOT a matter of 'some form of carry must be allowed' that guided their Ruling. The GA Supremes stated quite clearly that ONLY LOC is the Protected Right. From Heller:



And later:

(Emphasis mine)

Reading Nunn in its entirety is highly recommended. There you will see how the GA Supremes reached their Ruling. And enable you to see that our strategy of trying to make CCW the Protected Right was doomed from the start. And that maintaining that strategy after we were shot down the first time we tried it was foolish. Staying with that strategy now, when we've been shot down is inane. Mr Nichols is an egomaniac. He has 'perfected' hubris to a degree not often seen. Which ain't a good thing in a litigator. But he has the basic facts of the matter right. Which is more than can be said for Mr Gura and all the other "right people."

Fortunately, We The People aren't dependent upon the ability of Mr Nichols to have the Right restored.





So, THE case to watch is covered elsewhere in this forum: Norman v State (AKA Norman v Florida). Here, the attorneys are VERY good at what they do. In that they have correctly read Heller and it's citation of Nunn. Which means that are using the Rulings from Circuits 2/3/4 and ESPECIALLY 10 (and now, Peruta) in support of their efforts. And, in a move that utterly astonished me, the NRA filed an amicus Brief that was entirely supportive.

True, it's still at the state level, while Mr Nichols is about to go in front of the 9th Circuit. But state Supreme Court rulings are frequently appealed directly to SCOTUS, which would put Norman ahead in the race to SCOTUS. With a little luck, the Fla Supremes will do what their job and their oaths require, and we'll have a Ruling that restores "and bear" to its rightful place in Constitutional law.


The Raisuli

I would point out that the CA3 & 4 cases aren't of great help here. The permits in those states (NJ/MD) don't differentiate between open and concealed carry. Those cases may work against us in the long run. The courts may say an open carry ban isn't constitutional......but may issue open carry is reasonable, so essentially we gain very little. I hope I'm wrong but I just don't see these liberal courts as shutting down CCW in favor of meaningful open carry.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Originally Posted by lowimpactuser

Mulay, stop posting.

You're competing with KC for "posters I agree with and who bring new insight to the discussion, but I desperately want to be wrong".

If Nichols could be nicer he'd be much further ahead.

Sigh.

I hear ya!

Originally Posted by press1280

I would point out that the CA3 & 4 cases aren't of great help here. The permits in those states (NJ/MD) don't differentiate between open and concealed carry. Those cases may work against us in the long run. The courts may say an open carry ban isn't constitutional......but may issue open carry is reasonable, so essentially we gain very little. I hope I'm wrong but I just don't see these liberal courts as shutting down CCW in favor of meaningful open carry.

I don't either. Still, those courts treated the cases as if they were only about CCW, which inspired their Rulings. And my hopes aren't based what those courts will do, but what SCOTUS will do IF a properly focused and presented LOC case is presented to them.

But my biggest hope is that we get an honest 9th Justice next year. Something that just ain't gonna happen if Hillary gets in office.


The Raisuli

[Drivedabizness]

Before you all hang me - please bear with me a moment. From a Constitutional "minimal protected" level, I'm kindof okay with the idea of LOC being the "protected" part of the right.

Most States deal with the 2A topic pretty well. I think if we actually got LOC here in CA the elephant in the room would come out. Libs HATE seeing people exercising rights they don't favor. So we go to them and say "issue CCW's as a matter of policy - make it inexpensive and easy to get for law-abiding people who go to training, etc." (cheaper than as it is now and without the admin headaches).

I bet that the vast majority of those who carry would choose CCW from a tactical standpoint. That many fewer guns in plain sight, causing apoplexy to the anti's.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

Before you all hang me - please bear with me a moment. From a Constitutional "minimal protected" level, I'm kindof okay with the idea of LOC being the "protected" part of the right.

Most States deal with the 2A topic pretty well. I think if we actually got LOC here in CA the elephant in the room would come out. Libs HATE seeing people exercising rights they don't favor. So we go to them and say "issue CCW's as a matter of policy - make it inexpensive and easy to get for law-abiding people who go to training, etc." (cheaper than as it is now and without the admin headaches).

I bet that the vast majority of those who carry would choose CCW from a tactical standpoint. That many fewer guns in plain sight, causing apoplexy to the anti's.

There's no heretic to burn in that statement.

Many, including Mulay, and perhaps Kc and myself, AGREE that LOC IS the historical right.

Further, the "hypothesis" of LOC giving Shall issue is a theory- called "the Ohio experience" where exactly that happened. A sample size of one isn't the best, but there's no counterexamples where open carry made CC harder, long term.

Indeed, carry is the "big prize" as it makes guns relevant in urban centers, as people spend more time out of the house in cities than those who live in rural locations.

LOC would, it's agreed, be MORE of an affront to the antigunners than concealed, for EXACTLY the same reason such special snowflakes here HATE LOC.

Getting carry of any sort will be our Normandy.

Except unlike the Germans who DIDN'T know the landing beach would be normandy, the anti-gunnners KNOW where our beachhead is.

[speedrrracer]

Originally Posted by lowimpactuser

LOC would, it's agreed, be MORE of an affront to the antigunners than concealed, for EXACTLY the same reason such special snowflakes here HATE LOC.

The same reasons? I thought most on this board think OC is stupid for it's obvious tactical flaws. Antis hate OC and they hate CC -- they hate anything to do with our 2A civil rights.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by speedrrracer

The same reasons? I thought most on this board think OC is stupid for it's obvious tactical flaws. Antis hate OC and they hate CC -- they hate anything to do with our 2A civil rights.

People HATE OC (I didn't say people who dislike or find it suboptimal- but hate) for the same reasons.

[smn]

OC is *hated* by antis specifically because it reveals a lawful behavior they wish extinguished.

[Paladin]

Can we get this thread back on topic???

This thread is for news re. the Nichols case, not a debate about OC vs CC.

[edfardos]

Agreed, the Oc vs Cc debate is designed to fragment our community and undermine the constitutional republic. Nichols is waiting on other cases, and still accepting donations. I donated twice, since the nra is working against him, and fallen for the oc\cc debate.

[Elgatodeacero]

interestingly, Mr. Nichols writes this on his website:

"Concurrent with my opening brief I will be filing a petition for my appeal to be heard initially before an en banc court and I will be filing a motion for expedited oral arguments and a decision. If either or both is granted then we should have a decision in my appeal in 2017. If oral arguments are scheduled in some other case which involves carrying firearms outside of the home before a decision on my en banc motion is decided then I will very likely file a motion to have my appeal aligned with that case (meaning that it will be heard before the same panel of judges)."

Both of his requests seem unlikely to be granted, and it seems unlikely his case would be joined with the other pending open carry cases.

He says some other stuff on his case page that I could not understand-

"My position is that the Open Carry right cannot be conditioned on a government issued permission slip. Given that the en banc Peruta decision held that there is no right to carry a concealed handgun in public, under the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals current case law, both CCW laws should be struck down. Should the court of appeals contrive some reason not to strike them down then my lawsuit demands that unrestricted handgun Open Carry licenses be granted with no qualification restrictions other than the person being issued the license is not prohibited under Federal or California law from possessing a firearm."

What does he mean that "both CCW laws should be struck down"? I dont get his point?

[ColdDeadHands1]

Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero

interestingly, Mr. Nichols writes this on his website:

"Concurrent with my opening brief I will be filing a petition for my appeal to be heard initially before an en banc court and I will be filing a motion for expedited oral arguments and a decision. If either or both is granted then we should have a decision in my appeal in 2017. If oral arguments are scheduled in some other case which involves carrying firearms outside of the home before a decision on my en banc motion is decided then I will very likely file a motion to have my appeal aligned with that case (meaning that it will be heard before the same panel of judges)."

Both of his requests seem unlikely to be granted, and it seems unlikely his case would be joined with the other pending open carry cases.

He says some other stuff on his case page that I could not understand-

"My position is that the Open Carry right cannot be conditioned on a government issued permission slip. Given that the en banc Peruta decision held that there is no right to carry a concealed handgun in public, under the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals current case law, both CCW laws should be struck down. Should the court of appeals contrive some reason not to strike them down then my lawsuit demands that unrestricted handgun Open Carry licenses be granted with no qualification restrictions other than the person being issued the license is not prohibited under Federal or California law from possessing a firearm."

What does he mean that "both CCW laws should be struck down"? I dont get his point?

He probably meant both CCW cases, not laws. Oh well, attorneys representing themselves don't really need to be that accurate anyway.

[Cokebottle]

He honestly thinks enbanc is going to go favorably for a 2A case 6 months after Peruta?

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero

interestingly, Mr. Nichols writes this on his website:

"Concurrent with my opening brief I will be filing a petition for my appeal to be heard initially before an en banc court and I will be filing a motion for expedited oral arguments and a decision. If either or both is granted then we should have a decision in my appeal in 2017. If oral arguments are scheduled in some other case which involves carrying firearms outside of the home before a decision on my en banc motion is decided then I will very likely file a motion to have my appeal aligned with that case (meaning that it will be heard before the same panel of judges)."

Both of his requests seem unlikely to be granted, and it seems unlikely his case would be joined with the other pending open carry cases.

He says some other stuff on his case page that I could not understand-

"My position is that the Open Carry right cannot be conditioned on a government issued permission slip. Given that the en banc Peruta decision held that there is no right to carry a concealed handgun in public, under the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals current case law, both CCW laws should be struck down. Should the court of appeals contrive some reason not to strike them down then my lawsuit demands that unrestricted handgun Open Carry licenses be granted with no qualification restrictions other than the person being issued the license is not prohibited under Federal or California law from possessing a firearm."

What does he mean that "both CCW laws should be struck down"? I dont get his point?

(emphasis mine)


I haven't been paying attention to Mr Nichols lately (I have my hopes on Norman v Florida), so I didn't know that he had weakened his case by making licenses a part of the suit. So, he really isn't as smart as he claims.

Originally Posted by Cokebottle

He honestly thinks enbanc is going to go favorably for a 2A case 6 months after Peruta?

Well, except for the 'license for LOC' bit, he does have the right legal strategy. AND, he has the admission of the PRK Solicitor General from the Peruta orals that 'carry' is a Right, just not concealed carry. Since the 9th Circus specifically ruled against concealed carry, and also specifically did not address LOC, I think he has a decent shot.

IF, that is, Norman hasn't made his suit moot.


The Raisuli

[Elgatodeacero]

Why would the Norman case moot anything?

It will be decided based on Florida state law, with some likely dicta about the Florida S.Ct.'s interpretation of federal law.

There is no real possibility that Nichols will jump straight to an en banc decision. It seems like a silly request that will not be taken seriously.

He waited too long to move his case ahead, and now others will get there first.

[surfgeorge]

Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero

He waited too long to move his case ahead, and now others will get there first.

I hardly think having a case stayed for years by the Ninth Circuit pending final outcome of Peruta/Richards/Baker could honestly be described as "waited too long".

Or do you claim that George Young, under the exact same circumstance, has "waited too long" also?

[Elgatodeacero]

Im not sure Mr. Young actively sought and received stays of his case. Also, Mr. Young also does not seem to have engaged in hostile and unproductive criticism of other cases, attorneys and activists. His lawyers actually sought assistance and advice from the 2nd Amend. community.

Nichols made requests for stays that made no sense, always claiming (like the lawyers he continuously criticised and belittled) that he knew best.

Mr. Nichols actively sought and obtained numerous stays in his case, apparently claiming he was waiting on Peruta, despite his claim his case had nothing to do with Peruta.

Nichols case is so far behind other cases on open carry that he will not get to be the hero genius of this struggle. I find it ironic and appropriate.

[surfgeorge]

Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero

Im not sure Mr. Young actively sought and received stays of his case. Also, Mr. Young also does not seem to have engaged in hostile and unproductive criticism of other cases, attorneys and activists. His lawyers actually sought assistance and advice from the 2nd Amend. community.

Which cases "criticized" by Mr. Nichols were won by the Second Amendment advocates?

Nichols made requests for stays that made no sense, always claiming (like the lawyers he continuously criticised and belittled) that he knew best.

I've read Mr. Nichols explanations for the stays he requested. I believe the reasoning is sound. Please explain why they don't "make sense" to you. And which "criticized" attorneys ever acknowledged that they didn't know best?

Mr. Nichols actively sought and obtained numerous stays in his case, apparently claiming he was waiting on Peruta, despite his claim his case had nothing to do with Peruta.

While his case may not have had anything to do directly with Peruta (concealed carry), the reasoning presented by the Court in the decision (there is no Constitutionally-protected right to concealed carry) in Peruta is relevant to his case, thus waiting for finalization of that decision and how it will impact his arguments is perfectly logical. It wouldn't make any sense to file his final brief while it was still possible for the Court to change the Peruta decision in any way, as that could invalidate any (altered) citations of Peruta.

Nichols case is so far behind other cases on open carry that he will not get to be the hero genius of this struggle. I find it ironic and appropriate.

Only time will tell. Interesting, though, that you engage in the very "hostility" that you seem to find so abhorrent in Mr. Nichols. Of course you, like him, are freely entitled to your opinions and to express them.

end

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero

Why would the Norman case moot anything?

It will be decided based on Florida state law, with some likely dicta about the Florida S.Ct.'s interpretation of federal law.

There is no real possibility that Nichols will jump straight to an en banc decision. It seems like a silly request that will not be taken seriously.

He waited too long to move his case ahead, and now others will get there first.

If the Fla Supremes give a reasoned, rational Decision, quoting Heller/McDonald, explaining how the 2nd required them to Find for Mr Norman, that would be a bit more than mere dicta. That would also be a HUGE win for "and bear." Which guarantees that the Grabberz would appeal.

If their Circuit Court supports their Decision, it would be a HUGE win for "and bear" in the Southeast. Which guarantees the Grabberz would file for cert.

Which SCOTUS would certainly grant. With any luck at all, Scalia's replacement would have been appointed by this time by President Trump. If Mr Norman's attorneys can resist the urge to change their strategy (I.E., if they can keep any and all mention of "concealed" OUT of the case), they (we) will win. And "and bear" and "outside the home" will FINALLY be decided.

In our favor.


The Raisuli

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli

If the Fla Supremes give a reasoned, rational Decision, quoting Heller/McDonald, explaining how the 2nd required them to Find for Mr Norman, that would be a bit more than mere dicta. That would also be a HUGE win for "and bear." Which guarantees that the Grabberz would appeal.

If their Circuit Court supports their Decision, it would be a HUGE win for "and bear" in the Southeast. Which guarantees the Grabberz would file for cert.

Which SCOTUS would certainly grant. With any luck at all, Scalia's replacement would have been appointed by this time by President Trump. If Mr Norman's attorneys can resist the urge to change their strategy (I.E., if they can keep any and all mention of "concealed" OUT of the case), they (we) will win. And "and bear" and "outside the home" will FINALLY be decided.

In our favor.


The Raisuli

I know I've had more than 1 glass of wine and am feeling quite jolly , but doesn't an appeal of state SC on a federal question go directly to SCOTUS?

By petition for writ of certiorari with respect to a decision of one of the territorial or state courts, after all state appeals have been exhausted, where an issue of federal constitutional or statutory law is in question. The writ is usually issued to a state supreme court (including high courts of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa), but is occasionally issued to a state's intermediate appellate court for cases where the state supreme court denied certiorari or review and thereby refused to hear the appeal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proced...e_jurisdiction

[Elgatodeacero]

Norman case involves the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of the Florida state constitution.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero

Norman case involves the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of the Florida state constitution.

No, it also involves their interpretation of the US Constitution. That means that Paladin is correct.


The Raisuli

[Paladin]

Deadline for Nichols to file his opening brief is ... (Although he says he might file a bit early in case of computer problems: http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=739)

[Snoop Doggy Dawg]

Nichols is not an attorney.

His case is the only open carry case in California- I think.

The only other cases related to carry in the 9th are by Birdt (Thomson, Raulinaitis (LA), Birdt, Raulinaitis (Ventura residency), and Nordstrom (Ventura moral character). The first 4 are fully briefed and have had supplemental briefing on Peruta ordered by the court. Nordstrom opening brief just filed.

[surfgeorge]

Originally Posted by Snoop Doggy Dawg

Nichols is not an attorney.

His case is the only open carry case in California- I think.

The only other cases related to carry in the 9th are by Birdt (Thomson, Raulinaitis (LA), Birdt, Raulinaitis (Ventura residency), and Nordstrom (Ventura moral character). The first 4 are fully briefed and have had supplemental briefing on Peruta ordered by the court. Nordstrom opening brief just filed.

Baker and Young out of Hawaii.

[wolfwood]

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...ACER.1-111.pdf
opening brief

[Elgatodeacero]

i like it. he covers a lot of terrible laws and shows how they work in conjunction to create a totally unconstitutional web of laws that destroy the 2nd Am.

pretty darn good effort for a non-lawyer.

he still seems like an unpleasant person, and he says a few things in the beginning of the brief and a few at the very end that are improperly, and unecessarily snarky. however, i was not aware he had death threats against him, so if true, i can understand why he may be *****ly (cant believe the filter block an innocent word describing the spines on a cactus!) and a little irritated after years of lititgation.

cant wait to read the govt malarkey they file in opposition.

[OleCuss]

High probability that he will lose. That's just how it goes.

And just because it looks good to us non-lawyers doesn't mean it will look even worth the read by a good attorney or by the court.

My guess is that it will shortly meet a fate similar to that of the CCW cases.

Dismissed.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Originally Posted by OleCuss

High probability that he will lose. That's just how it goes.

And just because it looks good to us non-lawyers doesn't mean it will look even worth the read by a good attorney or by the court.

My guess is that it will shortly meet a fate similar to that of the CCW cases.

Dismissed.

Possible. OTOH, he does have an advantage: He's asking for something that Heller said was a Right, instead of doing what we did (asking for something that Hellerr said was NOT a Right).

I'm not happy that what he requests is a license to carry openly. If he wins, we'll need a "Mother May I?" slip to exercise an enumerated Constitutional Right. Something required for no other Right.


The Raisuli

[Elgatodeacero]

Originally Posted by OleCuss

High probability that he will lose. That's just how it goes.

And just because it looks good to us non-lawyers doesn't mean it will look even worth the read by a good attorney or by the court.

My guess is that it will shortly meet a fate similar to that of the CCW cases.

Dismissed.

Yeah, and trump can never win.

[OleCuss]

I'm one of the few who thought Trump had a good chance of winning from the very beginning. Your point falls very flat.

It's not a good case, it is not argued by a good lawyer, it is being brought to a court which has proven it will reject any pro-RKBA case and rule against it, and it is ill-timed for eventual cert to a SCOTUS which will support liberty.

This one should be dropped, but I am pretty sure it won't be. Unless the court does a simple dismissal this one will harm us.

[Snoop Doggy Dawg]

I think the brief is great and would have been our last hope were we in not for reciprocity next year.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by OleCuss

I'm one of the few who thought Trump had a good chance of winning from the very beginning. Your point falls very flat.

It's not a good case, it is not argued by a good lawyer, it is being brought to a court which has proven it will reject any pro-RKBA case and rule against it, and it is ill-timed for eventual cert to a SCOTUS which will support liberty.

This one should be dropped, but I am pretty sure it won't be. Unless the court does a simple dismissal this one will harm us.

I can understand how you may say the quality of the case is bad,

but how the heck can you think it's "bad timing"? It has a little longer than Peruta, which means it would still happen in a Trump term, but be a little further down the way when we definitely have a Scalia seat appointment, and a much better chance of a Ginsburg or other replacement, which would guarantee wins for the second amendment.

[OleCuss]

If we're lucky it gets a quick dismissal. That's the optimal outcome.

If you are looking for a 9th Circus ruling which is favorable - it might take a decade or more to get enough change in the make-up of the 9th Circus to get a ruling which favors us unless the SCOTUS takes that case and eventually remands it to the 9th somehow and directs the verdict/opinion. The 9th Circus has adequately demonstrated that it just doesn't care if the SCOTUS has clearly established stare decisis.

Without the case being beautifully argued by a very good and respected lawyer at the various levels it is highly unlikely that SCOTUS will consider the case to be prepared to the level they require. They aren't going to grant cert. Seriously, look at the cases to which they have denied cert - cases which appeared slam-dunk and which involved circuit splits have been denied cert.

To me the logical reason why cert was not granted is because one of our Heller 5 is/was not sufficiently on-board with clarifying the RKBA. The fascists haven't figured they could be sure to get what they wanted and the conservatives weren't sure they would get what they wanted. That meant you couldn't get the four fascists to vote for cert and you couldn't get the four conservatives to all vote for cert. Kennedy is probably the one both sides feared would sabotage them.

Now Scalia has died. If you should get cert right now (for any of our cases) and have the current 8 judge SCOTUS rule on the RKBA, then we lose and lose badly. But that is not the likely scenario.

Take a look at Peruta. . . It has been well-argued and the case was rather compellingly made - and was even more compelling after the beautiful ruling by the 3-judge panel. It is also to be argued by experienced lawyer(s) who are respected by the SCOTUS and can be expected to make good arguments and thus good law.

But the timing is even bad for Peruta IMHO. Peruta got an extension to file for cert. This means that they would have to request cert before the end of this year. That sounds good because I believe you can expect a Scalia-type SCOTUS appointee to be confirmed by some time in March (maybe earlier) and I consider it very unlikely that the case would be heard by then. So you'd have a new Heller 5 type court ready to vote out great pro-RKBA decisions?

Nope! You'll likely still have exactly the same SCOTUS make-up problem as we had before. Neither the fascists nor the conservatives will be sufficiently confident of an outcome they favor in order to consider granting cert to be a good strategic move.

That new Trump conservative is likely to be in the same mold as Scalia. But our SCOTUS conservative bloc won't likely be as persuasive as it was when Scalia was present. Scalia had known all the players for years and was apparently someone who was good about making friends. I've heard good reports that he was on very good terms with both Ginsburg and Kagan (at a minimum) despite deep disagreements on matters of law/philosophy. It may be that Scalia's friends on the fascist side of the court will feel less constrained by the bonds of friendship now that they'll have a POTUS whom they abhor (Ginsburg has been incredibly obvious about her hatred/disdain for Trump) having appointed a new conservative. You can bet that the new appointee will be getting a rather frosty welcome by the fascists and they are unlikely to work with the new Trump appointee as they could have worked with Scalia. They won't have nearly the reluctance to alienate the new appointee which they had to alienate Scalia.

So if Peruta gets cert I think the outcome for us is unlikely to be what we wish.

We need two Trump appointees in order to give us a likely solid 5 SCOTUS votes for the RKBA going forward. I doubt any of the 4 fascist justices or Kennedy will be eager to step down in the first year or two of the Trump administration. Ginsburg has previously suggested that as long as she can show up she'll stay on the SCOTUS - and she stayed even when many on the Left were strongly urging her to step down so that Obama could appoint a new fascist who would be on the court for decades to come.

The calls for Ginsburg to follow this course of action diminished when Trump got the nomination and the Senate showed that they would block any further fascist appointees. There is a good chance that Ginsburg (currently 83 y/o) will try to outlast the first Trump term in hopes that Trump will lose to Elizabeth Warren in 2020.

There is no particularly good reason to believe that others will be any more eager to allow Trump to make more appointments. Heck, even the conservative judges likely have no trust in Trump at this time since they are generally establishment types themselves.

So we may not get a 5-judge conservative majority until one or more of the non-conservatives dies or we get a second Trump term.

So assuming good health for the SCOTUS for the next four years, we may have four more years of a court which is insufficiently likely to rule in a pro-RKBA manner to warrant cert by the conservatives.

However, in a year or two if Trump proves very successful and popular the probability of fascist and conservative retirements will greatly increase because they will figure he is going to get a second term and they just don't want to try to outlast Trump. Even worse, they may figure Pence gets elected after Trump and that might mean 12-16 years of conservative appointments.

I predict none of the fascist justices will claim to be just retiring. They will cite poor health or family matters which are too urgent to allow them to continue to serve. If they just say they are getting old and just want to do something else they will be forever considered to be traitors by their fellow fascists.

Those are the dynamics I believe are going on and will go on until one of the non-conservatives becomes very ill or dies.

I do not expect anything pro-RKBA to make it out of SCOTUS in the meantime. One Trump appointment (Scalia appointment) is not going to fix the problem we have had for years. We will need the replacement appointment of one of the non-conservatives before we will get the court we need in order to fix the problem.

If you want to hope for something great in the next year or two you will have to hope that Trump builds overwhelming support quickly and then pushes the congress to pass legislation which will fix some of our problems.

Otherwise we'd have to be ghouls wishing for the death of certain people - and I don't see that as honorable.

[lowimpactuser]

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.

Originally Posted by OleCuss

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.

[OleCuss]

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.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by OleCuss

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.

Originally Posted by OleCuss

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.

Originally Posted by OleCuss

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.

Originally Posted by OleCuss

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.

Originally Posted by OleCuss

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.