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

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Originally Posted by 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.


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

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

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

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

WE are the ghouls, and dishonorable?

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

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


The Raisuli

[Elgatodeacero]

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

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

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

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

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

Is this the part of the movie where Nichols starts looking like an under dog with a serious shot?!

[Paladin]

What has FGG said re. this case?

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by Paladin

What has FGG said re. this case?

I dunno but I bet it rates at least one "lol"

[DarkKing]

Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero

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

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

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

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

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

Is this the part of the movie where Nichols starts looking like an under dog with a serious shot?!

There are listed technical grounds. If the they side with the state it would set a precedent that the rules do not need to be followed when filing.
Essentially any cases where they denied in the past for not filing on time could be reopened. LAWLs this is a cluster **** for them.

[Dantedamean]

Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero

This is unfair and incorrect.

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

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

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

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

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

I got into an argument with him on Reddit one time. He's kind of a nut. He thinks you're a coward or a criminal if you want to concealed carry and that the only carry that should be available is open carry.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[surfgeorge]

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

From Mr. Nichols' website this afternoon:

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

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

Notice of Docket Activity

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

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

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

[Blade Gunner]

Originally Posted by surfgeorge

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

From Mr. Nichols' website this afternoon:

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

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

Notice of Docket Activity

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

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

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

More reason to hope Trump focuses on repopulating the ninth district with pro Constitutionalist judges.

[sfpcservice]

Didn't SCOTUS grant a similar extension to our side for Cert filing? It sucks to have to wait, but I think the judges want to give everyone the best shot they can at presenting their side; even if the case is already "decided"....

[surfgeorge]

Originally Posted by sfpcservice

Didn't SCOTUS grant a similar extension to our side for Cert filing? It sucks to have to wait, but I think the judges want to give everyone the best shot they can at presenting their side; even if the case is already "decided"....

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

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

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

"The Answering Brief by Governor Brown and the Attorney General in my California Open Carry appeal was Due on December 19, 2016 which was 29 days ago. In a decision published last Friday by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a man did not get his $99,500 returned from the government because he missed his filing deadline by thirty-five minutes. I filed my opposition to the state's time-barred motion for an extension on December 20th, well within the ten day limit for me to file my opposition. The state missed its deadline, I have met all of my deadlines. The state's motion is still pending. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Hopefully, it will not be a case of "One rule for me and another for thee.""

[sfpcservice]

Ok thanks for the correction.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by surfgeorge

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

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

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

"The Answering Brief by Governor Brown and the Attorney General in my California Open Carry appeal was Due on December 19, 2016 which was 29 days ago. In a decision published last Friday by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a man did not get his $99,500 returned from the government because he missed his filing deadline by thirty-five minutes. I filed my opposition to the state's time-barred motion for an extension on December 20th, well within the ten day limit for me to file my opposition. The state missed its deadline, I have met all of my deadlines. The state's motion is still pending. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Hopefully, it will not be a case of "One rule for me and another for thee.""

This was so predictable. The court and the government are basically one in the same when it comes to 2A cases, especially in the 9th.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero

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

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

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

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

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

Is this the part of the movie where Nichols starts looking like an under dog with a serious shot?!

One of the briefs I read recently (I think the Flanagan case) seems to indicate CA strategy will be to play the urban vs. Rural carry. They know by trying for a home bound right will create an obvious split with CA7 so this is what they've got.
It's weak but CA9 is just the kind of court that'll try to do legal gymnastics to avoid a split but still allow for all kinds of infringement.

[edfardos]

god bless charles

We could be living history here. Faces like his could be on the currency of The Second Constitutional Republic of America.

[wolfwood]

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


answering brief

[freonr22]

I can't download the scribed app..post a pdf?

[wolfwood]

cal guns website will not let me

[wolfwood]

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

go to here to download it

[freonr22]

Thank you sir!

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

cal guns website will not let me

Works for me....

[sarabellum]

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

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

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

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

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

[Elgatodeacero]

The states brief is pretty bad.

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

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

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

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

I wish Nichols wisdom and humility in the 4th quarter of his personal superbowl.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by sarabellum

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

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

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

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

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

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

[kcbrown]

I expect one of these idiotic states to eventually argue that the opportunity to become a police officer satisfies the right to bear. There is absolutely no difference between that and a "may issue" scheme, save for the specific requirements of each.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by kcbrown

I expect one of these idiotic states to eventually argue that the opportunity to become a police officer satisfies the right to bear. There is absolutely no difference between that and a "may issue" scheme, save for the specific requirements of each.

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

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

So you can carry only under "exigent" circumstances. Any other rights that can be exercised under only "exigent" circumstances?
It's really pathetic that the state thinks these exceptions make it any different than the Illinois law (taking into account CCW is off the table). Only more pathetic is that many of the leftists on CA9 might actually buy it.

[sarabellum]

Originally Posted by press1280

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

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

So you can carry only under "exigent" circumstances. Any other rights that can be exercised under only "exigent" circumstances?
It's really pathetic that the state thinks these exceptions make it any different than the Illinois law (taking into account CCW is off the table). Only more pathetic is that many of the leftists on CA9 might actually buy it.

The government's reliance on Cal. Penal Code §§ 26045(a) (permitting carrying a loaded firearm to protect persons or property from immediate, grave danger) is comical because it implies carrying openly on one's property or immediately or contemporaneously with the assault or battery somewhere away from home such that you race home to get your arm and race back to the scene. This is a time machine statute; it cannot possibly exempt one from openly carrying at the train or carjacking station because one's gun is at home in the past while the violence occurs at a future time.

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

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

[RSC]

Why not! I kind of like this way of tackling this conundrum. Something has to give to release the "pressure", this might be it

[KC_to_CA]

Originally Posted by Now, could the 9th find a way to Rule that LOC isn't the Right [B

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

The Raisuli

They can say "CCW is nott a right and we upheld current OC statues".

[press1280]

Originally Posted by KC_to_CA

They can say "CCW is nott a right and we upheld current OC statues".

It's going to be real tricky for them. No public carry in LA w/o a CCW, which is off the table.
CA9 (assuming a bad panel, which is likely) will have to somehow prove that a law which only allows carry if the person is in imminent danger is somehow a world apart from the IL law struck down in Moore. The easiest route is CA9 laying out a blueprint of may issue for OC permits statewide, a wink to the state that they can continue to smother public carry.
The dissent in Moore did the same thing, basically laying out that forests and other clearly non-sensitive places could be made off limits.

[sarabellum]

Originally Posted by RSC

Why not! I kind of like this way of tackling this conundrum. Something has to give to release the "pressure", this might be it

Done. I communicated with Nichols about the above. It went no where.

[wolfwood]

I can't wait for oral arguments. I will fly up to San Fran to watch that. I hope he wins. Despite his obvious personality issues I do respect the fact he has kept this up for so many years.

[Diamondi88]

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

[surfgeorge]

Originally Posted by Diamondi88

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

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

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

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...7%20Hawaii.pdf

[Diamondi88]

Originally Posted by surfgeorge

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

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

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...7%20Hawaii.pdf

I have been following your plight in Hawaii through your posts for awhile. Sometimes reading them I think "glad I don't live there" then realize I live in CA.

[surfgeorge]

Originally Posted by Diamondi88

I have been following your plight in Hawaii through your posts for awhile. Sometimes reading them I think "glad I don't live there" then realize I live in CA.

Yeah, let's not get into a "Oh woe is me!" contest... no one could possibly win that one and we'll both just end up depressed.

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

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

It's gonna be a battle. Likely a long one. I wish us all luck. We're gonna need it.

[wolfwood]

amicus brief due today

Brady Campaign filed one


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

I really wish the NRA had filed one to balance this out. I wonder why they did not.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

amicus brief due today

Brady Campaign filed one


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

I really wish the NRA had filed one to balance this out. I wonder why they did not.

Nichols has a theory. While he might be stark raving mad, stopped clocks are right twice a day, which means he could be a crazy stopped clock but still right about filing an open carry lawsuit and right about the NRA and their feelings on open carry.

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

[wolfwood]

https://www.scribd.com/document/3402...verytown-Brief

Everytown brief

[press1280]

They are arguing for the constitutionality of a total carry ban, although they also say CA doesn't have a total ban because they have CCW permits, which the 9th just said isn't a part of the right!

[wolfwood]

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

law center is the last amicus