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

[surfgeorge]

Originally Posted by lowimpactuser

Even when they disagreed with Heller NRA tried to step in.

The NRA tried to derail Heller, according to Heller attorneys Alan Gura and Robert Levy. Only after the NRA failed to derail the case did they eventually "get involved". They are certainly providing no assistance in Nichols v. Brown.

[HecklerNKoch]

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

Reading the first half of your paragraph about Hawaii, I couldn't think of any differences as it pertains to California. This entire thread has been both eye-opening, in shaping perspective and at the same time so dismal. Like looking back in time through historical lenses, it almost feels like 'they're' laughing at us. I can't imagine how much worse it will be in twenty years, but state entities rarely ever have relinquished power-taken back to the people. I can't imagine what grand chain of events could possibly shift the tolerance of the state for allowing an armed public.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by surfgeorge

The NRA tried to derail Heller, according to Heller attorneys Alan Gura and Robert Levy. Only after the NRA failed to derail the case did they eventually "get involved". They are certainly providing no assistance in Nichols v. Brown.

I only said step in, not help...

[wolfwood]

Originally Posted by HecklerNKoch

Reading the first half of your paragraph about Hawaii, I couldn't think of any differences as it pertains to California. This entire thread has been both eye-opening, in shaping perspective and at the same time so dismal. Like looking back in time through historical lenses, it almost feels like 'they're' laughing at us. I can't imagine how much worse it will be in twenty years, but state entities rarely ever have relinquished power-taken back to the people. I can't imagine what grand chain of events could possibly shift the tolerance of the state for allowing an armed public.

Hawaii is different since no can carry in the entire state. As a legal matter the State can't argue like CA is that you can carry in unincorporated land and many counties. There simply is no place where you can carry outside the home without a permit and permits are never issued. Currently 0 in the entire state.

[surfgeorge]

Originally Posted by HecklerNKoch

Reading the first half of your paragraph about Hawaii, I couldn't think of any differences as it pertains to California. This entire thread has been both eye-opening, in shaping perspective and at the same time so dismal. Like looking back in time through historical lenses, it almost feels like 'they're' laughing at us. I can't imagine how much worse it will be in twenty years, but state entities rarely ever have relinquished power-taken back to the people. I can't imagine what grand chain of events could possibly shift the tolerance of the state for allowing an armed public.

Well, I've heard them literally laugh at us. It was the chair of a committee hearing two anti-firearms rights bills consecutively, and as he started to read off the names of those submitting testimony opposing the second bill he stopped and laughed "Oh, I've seen these names before! hahaha"... yeah, we're the same idiots from the previous bill that actually believed that maybe submitting testimony with facts about the issue would have some influence on the "thinking" of legislators. That is funny!

The Hawaii state senate (100% Democrats) just had a second committee (Judiciary) hearing on a bill (SB898) that would allow (based upon an ex parte hearing without even informing the accused of the hearing, much less allowing legal representation) firearms to be confiscated from someone deemed, based on even secondhand information, "a serious risk of violence or harm to public safety". The testimony submitted for the bill was:

OPPOSED: 102
FAVOR: 10

Committee vote: UNANIMOUS in FAVOR

Here is what I posted earlier to our local forum:

The irony/stupidity of this law is that a cop can hear something secondhand from a third party and decide that information is "reliable", then go to a (left-leaning "better to be safe than sorry"?) judge and get an ex parte (the accused is neither present nor even notified of the proceeding and thus has no legal representation at all, aka "due process") order for the "informally" accused person's firearms to be confiscated, and while the "hearing" to determine whether or not that person is truly a "person who pose(s) a serious risk of violence or harm to public safety" is supposedly to be held within 30 days, in the meantime that person who has had his/her rights rendered meaningless because someone claims they "pose a serious risk of violence or harm to public safety" can get behind the wheel of any motor vehicle and do whatever they want (See: Nice, Berlin, Ohio State University, Isla Vista, Melbourne, Las Vegas, etc.)! They can also do whatever they want with any hammer, knife, chainsaw, pipe, machete, poison, gasoline, dangerous chemicals, etc., etc., etc. JFC!! If a person actually is a "serious risk of violence or harm to public safety" the only serious and obvious answer is to arrest and incarcerate that person, thus removing them from the possibility of using any tools or their hands and feet to enact "violence or harm to public safety". In that scenario, however, the protections of individual rights remain in place and that person is entitled to an immediate hearing, with legal representation, to defend themselves against the charges in an open courtroom.

You gotta wonder why the exclusive focus on "firearms" as the only tools confiscated while the dangerous person roams the streets of the community free to enact violence by any other of myriad means.

* * * * *
So, I can't imagine it either.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

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

law center is the last amicus

These guys always like citing the short lived Western territory carry bans as evidence of constitutionality. Those bans never got to court and were always repealed by the legislature. In essence they claim that any law that ever was implemented was/is constitutional.

Add in the fact the 2A wasn't incorporated until 2010, so even if carry bans were common it means absolutely nothing.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by press1280

These guys always like citing the short lived Western territory carry bans as evidence of constitutionality. Those bans never got to court and were always repealed by the legislature. In essence they claim that any law that ever was implemented was/is constitutional.

Add in the fact the 2A wasn't incorporated until 2010, so even if carry bans were common it means absolutely nothing.

Edit: One of those bans was challenged, and guess what? Overturned by the Supreme Court of Idaho as a violation of the Idaho Constitution AND the 2A!

1. The act of the territorial legislature approved February 4, 1889, which prohibits private persons from carrying deadly weapons within the limits or confines of any city, town, or village in Idaho, contravenes the provisions of the second amendment to the federal constitution and the provisions of section 11, art. 1, of the constitution of Idaho, and is void.

2. While it is undoubtedly within the power of the legislature to prohibit the carrying of concealed deadly weapons, and such regulation is a proper exercise of police power, yet the legislature does not possess the power to prohibit the carrying of firearms, as the right to do so is guarantied to the citizen both by our federal and state constitutions.

Case is IN RE Brickey 1902: http://www.guncite.com/court/state/70p609.html

[press1280]

They also hang their hat on Miller v. Texas 1894 : https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../535/case.html

In his motion for a rehearing, however, defendant claimed that the law of the State of Texas forbidding the carrying of weapons and authorizing the arrest without warrant, of any person violating such law, under which certain questions arose upon the trial of the case, was in conflict with the Second and Fourth amendments to the Constitution of the United States, one of which provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and the other of which protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. We have examined the record in vain, however, to find where the defendant was denied the benefit of any of these provisions, and, even if he were, it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts.

I'm not even a lawyer and I've already shredded the LCAV's brief.

[pistol3]

This would make me laugh, if I didn't think there was a good chance that the majority of the 9th Circuit agrees. From the Everytown brief:

I. THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT OF AN INDIVIDUALTO BEAR ARMS DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE HOME.

The 2A according to Everytown:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep arms and bear arms inside their homes shall not be infringed.

So I guess militia training would consist of everyone going to their house, taking out their musket, and sitting next to the window incase a bad guy walks by? I'm sure that was the intent.

[surfgeorge]

Originally Posted by pistol3

This would make me laugh, if I didn't think there was a good chance that the majority of the 9th Circuit agrees.

So I guess militia training would consist of everyone going to their house, taking out their musket, and sitting next to the window incase a bad guy walks by? I'm sure that was the intent.

Yeah, it won't be funny when the Ninth concurs.

Something I wrote elsewhere earlier:

I just read that Brady amicus again... I thought my head was going to explode. They could have saved everyone a lot of brain damage by just writing: "No ordinary citizen should ever have any firearm in any circumstance. And we have paid shills who will produce pseudo-scientific literature of meaningless "associations" to "prove" our point."
.....
And I'll bet that there is almost no chance that the court will deny the motions to accept the amici even though Mr. Nichols refused to consent to their submission and will likely file to have them rejected.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by surfgeorge

Yeah, it won't be funny when the Ninth concurs.

Something I wrote elsewhere earlier:

I just read that Brady amicus again... I thought my head was going to explode. They could have saved everyone a lot of brain damage by just writing: "No ordinary citizen should ever have any firearm in any circumstance. And we have paid shills who will produce pseudo-scientific literature of meaningless "associations" to "prove" our point."
.....
And I'll bet that there is almost no chance that the court will deny the motions to accept the amici even though Mr. Nichols refused to consent to their submission and will likely file to have them rejected.

At least CA9 will be honest if they do indeed rule the right doesn't extend past your front door.
CA9 however, does not want to have ANOTHER case get overturned by SCOTUS, and ruling "only in the home" splits with Moore and ups the chances it gets taken. It'll be very interesting what legal gymnastics are played to defend a total carry ban but yet not in conflict with Moore.

[BeAuMaN]

According to his webpage dedicated to the status of his case, Mr. Nichols submitted his reply brief yesterday:

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...f-14-55873.pdf

Also his "Supplemental Excerpts of Record", which I guess is extra evidence and references relevant to his brief?

[surfgeorge]

Originally Posted by press1280

At least CA9 will be honest if they do indeed rule the right doesn't extend past your front door.
CA9 however, does not want to have ANOTHER case get overturned by SCOTUS, and ruling "only in the home" splits with Moore and ups the chances it gets taken. It'll be very interesting what legal gymnastics are played to defend a total carry ban but yet not in conflict with Moore.

No right to concealed carry, but there is a right to open carry. That right, which is "not unlimited", under "intermediate scrutiny" (falsely labeled "interest balancing"/"rational basis"), is thus subject to many legal restrictions including, but not limited to, virtually any restrictions the state and/or counties want to place upon it. These would include the current restrictions on the privilege of concealed carry: license required, county total population, "good cause" requirement, "sensitive area" (aka "populated area") restriction, etc.

That's my prediction. Or something generally similar. In other words, "no carry for you!" I hope I am wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Drivedabizness]

I'm sure the Court appreciated his inclusion of fairy tale materials...

#SMHWHATANIDIOT

[surfgeorge]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

I'm sure the Court appreciated his inclusion of fairy tale materials...

#SMHWHATANIDIOT

Speaking of "fairy tale material", did you read the three amicus briefs submitted in support of Becerra/Brown?

[Drivedabizness]

I don't read much enemy propaganda....it doesn't really matter WHO engages in counterproductive douchebaggery - the point is NOT TO DO SO when pleading before Federal judges #facepalm

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

I don't read much enemy propaganda....it doesn't really matter WHO engages in counterproductive douchebaggery - the point is NOT TO DO SO when pleading before Federal judges #facepalm

Unless you're the state and the federal judges are mostly of the "progressive" variety, especially on the 9th Circuit. Then such douchebaggery is not only productive, it's "persuasive".



(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)

[press1280]

Originally Posted by surfgeorge

No right to concealed carry, but there is a right to open carry. That right, which is "not unlimited", under "intermediate scrutiny" (falsely labeled "interest balancing"/"rational basis"), is thus subject to many legal restrictions including, but not limited to, virtually any restrictions the state and/or counties want to place upon it. These would include the current restrictions on the privilege of concealed carry: license required, county total population, "good cause" requirement, "sensitive area" (aka "populated area") restriction, etc.

That's my prediction. Or something generally similar. In other words, "no carry for you!" I hope I am wrong, wrong, wrong.

My prediction is similar to that. They know the ban in it's current form can't be held without splitting with Moore (and now Norman). But the case isn't about may-issue, so the state will take the easy road and make OC permits "available" statewide on a may-issue basis. So it'll be obvious SF and LA will not issue OC permits (except to select few individuals). They know another challenge to OC may-issue will result in a cut and paste of the CA2-4 opinions.
I would like them to try to rule that it's permissible to ban based on zip code. That would likely get them more likely to have the case taken by SCOTUS.

[surfgeorge]

Originally Posted by press1280

My prediction is similar to that. They know the ban in it's current form can't be held without splitting with Moore (and now Norman). But the case isn't about may-issue, so the state will take the easy road and make OC permits "available" statewide on a may-issue basis. So it'll be obvious SF and LA will not issue OC permits (except to select few individuals). They know another challenge to OC may-issue will result in a cut and paste of the CA2-4 opinions.
I would like them to try to rule that it's permissible to ban based on zip code. That would likely get them more likely to have the case taken by SCOTUS.

There are a lot of ways they could "nuance" such a decision to claim that carry (in some form) is "available" while it is de facto not available (see, e.g.: Hawaii "may issue" = zero licenses statewide).

I'm not sure how the Ninth could nuance "most acute in the home" to mean "doesn't apply at all outside the home", but if you read the Hawaii Peruta en banc amicus that's exactly what the Hawaii AG does. I have faith that the majority of the Ninth judges are up to the task and expect to see some mind-boggling originality in legal reasoning. And at least 6 to 10 more years of litigation to merely get to the next step.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Originally Posted by surfgeorge

Well, I've heard them literally laugh at us. It was the chair of a committee hearing two anti-firearms rights bills consecutively, and as he started to read off the names of those submitting testimony opposing the second bill he stopped and laughed "Oh, I've seen these names before! hahaha"... yeah, we're the same idiots from the previous bill that actually believed that maybe submitting testimony with facts about the issue would have some influence on the "thinking" of legislators. That is funny!

The Hawaii state senate (100% Democrats) just had a second committee (Judiciary) hearing on a bill (SB898) that would allow (based upon an ex parte hearing without even informing the accused of the hearing, much less allowing legal representation) firearms to be confiscated from someone deemed, based on even secondhand information, "a serious risk of violence or harm to public safety". The testimony submitted for the bill was:

OPPOSED: 102
FAVOR: 10

Committee vote: UNANIMOUS in FAVOR

Here is what I posted earlier to our local forum:

The irony/stupidity of this law is that a cop can hear something secondhand from a third party and decide that information is "reliable", then go to a (left-leaning "better to be safe than sorry"?) judge and get an ex parte (the accused is neither present nor even notified of the proceeding and thus has no legal representation at all, aka "due process") order for the "informally" accused person's firearms to be confiscated, and while the "hearing" to determine whether or not that person is truly a "person who pose(s) a serious risk of violence or harm to public safety" is supposedly to be held within 30 days, in the meantime that person who has had his/her rights rendered meaningless because someone claims they "pose a serious risk of violence or harm to public safety" can get behind the wheel of any motor vehicle and do whatever they want (See: Nice, Berlin, Ohio State University, Isla Vista, Melbourne, Las Vegas, etc.)! They can also do whatever they want with any hammer, knife, chainsaw, pipe, machete, poison, gasoline, dangerous chemicals, etc., etc., etc. JFC!! If a person actually is a "serious risk of violence or harm to public safety" the only serious and obvious answer is to arrest and incarcerate that person, thus removing them from the possibility of using any tools or their hands and feet to enact "violence or harm to public safety". In that scenario, however, the protections of individual rights remain in place and that person is entitled to an immediate hearing, with legal representation, to defend themselves against the charges in an open courtroom.

You gotta wonder why the exclusive focus on "firearms" as the only tools confiscated while the dangerous person roams the streets of the community free to enact violence by any other of myriad means.

* * * * *
So, I can't imagine it either.

It's a concept the Grabberz are VERY fond of. On the rare occasions that I get one or more to agree that violence is an acceptable response to violence, their response is that using guns is bad, but that any other form of violence is good. To point out the logical disconnect gets me attacked.

Originally Posted by press1280

They also hang their hat on Miller v. Texas 1894 : https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../535/case.html

In his motion for a rehearing, however, defendant claimed that the law of the State of Texas forbidding the carrying of weapons and authorizing the arrest without warrant, of any person violating such law, under which certain questions arose upon the trial of the case, was in conflict with the Second and Fourth amendments to the Constitution of the United States, one of which provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and the other of which protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. We have examined the record in vain, however, to find where the defendant was denied the benefit of any of these provisions, and, even if he were, it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts.

I'm not even a lawyer and I've already shredded the LCAV's brief.

And that would be real good if honest judges were the ones to decide the issue. Which is to say, the justices of the 9th Circus will simply laugh and ignore it.


The Raisuli

[surfgeorge]

I see there has been no update on this case for a while.

For those who might be interested in "the details", Mr. Nichols has filed five FRAP Rule 28(j) Letters/Notices of Supplemental Authority:

Willis et al v. City of Fresno et al No 14-16560 – 9th Cir. March 1 – 2017 – Filed March 2, 2017. http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...Willis-28j.pdfhttp://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...Willis-28j.pdf

Christopher Baker v. Louis Kealoha et FRAP Rule 28j Letter – Filed March 17, 2017. http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...Kealoha-et.pdf

Dale Lee Norman v. State of Florida FRAP Rule 28j Letter – Filed March 17, 2017. http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...P-Rule-28j.pdf

Flanagan et al v Harris et al FRAP Rule 28j Letter – Filed March 17, 2017. http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...P-Rule-28j.pdf

WISCONSIN CARRY INC. v City of Madison FRAP Rule 28j Letter – Filed March 17, 2017.http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...P-Rule-28j.pdf

All these links can be found on the main page of Mr. Nichols' webpage dedicated to the case: http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=739

[sfpcservice]

I've said it here before but I'll say it again: I Predict the anti's will RUSH to give us shall issue. This will be the result of a Peruta loss (no cert) and a Nichols win at SCOTUS.

The idea of open carry will scare the antis so bad they will immediately pass legislation to allow us to carry hidden instead of openly, thereby saving countless children's lives....

The next move will be to restrict carry as much as possible.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by sfpcservice

I've said it here before but I'll say it again: I Predict the anti's will RUSH to give us shall issue. This will be the result of a Peruta loss (no cert) and a Nichols win at SCOTUS.

The idea of open carry will scare the antis so bad they will immediately pass legislation to allow us to carry hidden instead of openly, thereby saving countless children's lives....

The next move will be to restrict carry as much as possible.

Hahahahaha....

What's the timeline and events that precede antis giving us shall issue? They believe (not without reason) courts have their backs.

So what would happen to make antis give us shall issue?

Gorsuch is appointed and... what? They give us shall issue?

Nichols wins? Loses? At the 9th?

Antis, when forced to recognize carry, will put time/place/manner restrictions where they can. I don't know what mechanism you think exists for us to achieve carry in CA generally though.

[sfpcservice]

Originally Posted by lowimpactuser

Hahahahaha....

What's the timeline and events that precede antis giving us shall issue? They believe (not without reason) courts have their backs.

So what would happen to make antis give us shall issue?

Gorsuch is appointed and... what? They give us shall issue?

Nichols wins? Loses? At the 9th?

Antis, when forced to recognize carry, will put time/place/manner restrictions where they can. I don't know what mechanism you think exists for us to achieve carry in CA generally though.

Did you even read my post before you went into the horse laugh?

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by sfpcservice

I've said it here before but I'll say it again: I Predict the anti's will RUSH to give us shall issue. This will be the result of a Peruta loss (no cert) and a Nichols win at SCOTUS.

You think SCOTUS will grant cert to Nichols when it denied cert to Woollard (which was a pure carry case that was mode-agnostic)? On what basis, aside from wishful thinking?

Actually, a better question is: what, aside from wishful thinking, makes you think it'll take Norman, which will almost certainly get there first?

What evidence do you have to support either position? I know of none, and we have substantial evidence that contradicts the notions you put forth here.


Wishful thinking is fine, but the real world is statistically immune to it.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by sfpcservice

Did you even read my post before you went into the horse laugh?

Yes, I did.

You didn't address how they would restrict open carry, after a SCOTUS case found it was legal. I'm familiar with the Ohio effect, where Open carry scares them into giving us shall issue- but that basically relies on people CHOOSING to concealed carry and shame people into concealed carry. But there is NO way to actually legally restrict open carry when it's been found to be protected. Ohio talked about trying restrict OC during the republican convention. Didn't go anywhere because muh constitooshun.

If we DID get OC protected, they WOULD likely give us shall issue to try to nudge us to concealed. But you'd still be able to walk down the street with a gun on your hip to say **** you to California. Or at least, if SCOTUS actually would be willing to uphold firearm rights at all.

[Blade Gunner]

The State Progs and 9th will drag their feet even if they lose at SCOTUS. Short of sending in the national guard, the Progs will never accept defeat.

[sfpcservice]

Ok, great points. I guess we're screwed then, no need for the forum anymore; all is lost forever.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by sfpcservice

Ok, great points. I guess we're screwed then, no need for the forum anymore; all is lost forever.

Agreed. Except we need the forum so we can lie to ourselves until the day we die that freedom is just around the corner.

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by lowimpactuser

freedom is just around the corner.

It is.
Just around the corner.
In about 35 other states.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by Cokebottle

It is.
Just around the cbornder.
In about 35 other states.

FIFY

[JDoe]

Originally Posted by Cokebottle

It is.
Just around the corner.
In about 35 other states.

Except that we have exactly the same rights. The other states' overlords provide privileges to their subjects that we don't enjoy in kommieforniastan.

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by JDoe

Except that we have exactly the same rights. The other states' overlords provide privileges to their subjects that we don't enjoy in kommieforniastan.

We have exactly the same rights.
The overlords in California see fit to deprive us of those rights.

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by Cokebottle

We have exactly the same rights.
The overlords in California see fit to deprive us of those rights.

What's the operational difference between a privilege and a right, under conditions where both require assent of the majority for their exercise?

Think that one through carefully.

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by kcbrown

What's the operational difference between a privilege and a right, under conditions where both require assent of the majority for their exercise?

Think that one through carefully.

A right can be taken away.
A privilege is granted.

Sadly, when it comes to firearms and 2A, too many, politicians and gun owners, treat it as a privilege.

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by Cokebottle

A right can be taken away.
A privilege is granted.

Sadly, when it comes to firearms and 2A, too many, politicians and gun owners, treat it as a privilege.

And the operational difference is ... ?

What's the difference between a right being taken away and a privilege not being granted?

What makes a right different from a privilege when the circumstances under which each can be exercised or prevented from being exercised are identical?


If there is no observable difference between two things, then on what basis would you conclude that they are, nevertheless, different?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[press1280]

Originally Posted by kcbrown

You think SCOTUS will grant cert to Nichols when it denied cert to Woollard (which was a pure carry case that was mode-agnostic)? On what basis, aside from wishful thinking?

Actually, a better question is: what, aside from wishful thinking, makes you think it'll take Norman, which will almost certainly get there first?

What evidence do you have to support either position? I know of none, and we have substantial evidence that contradicts the notions you put forth here.


Wishful thinking is fine, but the real world is statistically immune to it.

I know of one. Norman has created a split, which as we know is a huge factor in SCOTUS granting cert.
At the time Woollard went to conference I think only Kachalsky had been decided.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by sfpcservice

I've said it here before but I'll say it again: I Predict the anti's will RUSH to give us shall issue. This will be the result of a Peruta loss (no cert) and a Nichols win at SCOTUS.

The idea of open carry will scare the antis so bad they will immediately pass legislation to allow us to carry hidden instead of openly, thereby saving countless children's lives....

The next move will be to restrict carry as much as possible.

It would depend on "how" Nichols would win at SCOTUS. A narrow win simply holding OC can't be banned with no mention of licensing? Not sure about that, we've already seen the rogue courts uphold licensing schemes where the government acts as a gatekeeper to constitutional rights. Also, they may try to ban carry in every single building, public park, exc thus making OC illusory in practice (not to mention excessive fees for licensing,exc.)

A strong opinion may make your above scenario a reality though. I agree if they had a gun pointed to their head (figuratively), they choose CC over OC.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by press1280

A strong opinion may make your above scenario a reality though. I agree if they had a gun pointed to their head (figuratively), they choose CC over OC.

A strong opinion (and requisite will to back it up by striking down cases that blatantly violate) isn't a gun to the head though. I still don't understand how we could get a strong court decision on OC that would lead to banned OC but shall issue CCW.

And a further point beyond legalities:

If we DID earn CC by way of California hating OC and trying to make us CC, why the HELL would anyone choose to CC wherever they can get by with OC?

Some people STILL don't understand this is a war.

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by kcbrown

And the operational difference is ... ?

What's the difference between a right being taken away and a privilege not being granted?

What makes a right different from a privilege when the circumstances under which each can be exercised or prevented from being exercised are identical?


If there is no observable difference between two things, then on what basis would you conclude that they are, nevertheless, different?

There is effectively no operation difference, but from a legal challenge perspective, it *should* be an easier case to fight the denied right.