Baird v. Becerra (USDC Eastern District of CA) Open Carry

[sfpcservice]

I'm getting a strong feeling lately that some sort of revolt is on the horizon.

When the country was formed, both parties at the time were fighting over the right to keep an bear arms, but the fight was whether or not writing it down was the best way to ensure the right was protected...

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.

John Jay- Federalist 2

[mcbair]

Nothing out of the court for over a month. Seems like a long time in a case where the state admits that there are few facts in question and few facts not already in evidence. The state’s attorney does not argue that California denies the Right to carry to the vast majority of lawful individuals. If the judge upholds this logic, the Second Amendment ceases to be a Right and becomes a state power to confer or deny at will, and wherever they wish. As I said to the sheriff in a face to face meeting, “we have the Right to keep and bear arms, and the Right shall not be infringed. We know this because the Constitution says so in plain english and easily understood language. It’s time to see if the Constitution and it’s Bill of Rights is the truth or is it a lie in California?” The Bill of Rights must either be truth or lies, because it cannot be both. Please help if you can.....www.tokeepandbear.com to contribute. Still waiting for a ruling to determine whether the Federal Court and its judge supports truth or lies?

[FirearmFino]

A month of waiting isn't a long time, especially in the Eastern District, where the court is desperate for more judges to handle the workload.

[gunuser17]

As noted in the cited article, judges in the Eastern District of CA have on average 900 or more cases each and criminal cases take priority. Waiting 3 to 6 months on a decision in a civil matter in district court is not unusual at all and I have seen decisions take much longer.

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by mcbair

It is not my habit to post on forums, but since this directly impacts me, I will make an attempt to explain the reasons for our lawsuit. Yes the lawsuit was my idea originally, but I take no credit, nor do I wish any. Thousands of patriots from Jefferson Counties are actively involved in an attempt to regain some of the Liberty we have all squandered through inaction, inattention, etc. The Jefferson Counties have also brought suit against California for lack of adequate representation, but that is another story.

We have the God given, pre-governmental Right to defense of self, family, community, state and nation. We know this because the Constitution says so in plain english as guaranteed in our Second Amendment. The California Constitution agrees in Art 1, Sec 1, Art 2, Sec 1, Art 3, Sec 1. California Governmental officials Swear, (or affirm) the same in Article 20. Government has NO Rights. Government is an inanimate object, and thus enjoys nothing the people do not give it, or in this case what it has usurped and stolen from the people. Only people have Rights. If that is true, what are we talking about here?

We allowed California government to take our liberty because Governor Reagan and Don Mulford had a bone to pick with the Black Panther Party in 1967. We again allowed California to strip us of what little remained of our rights in 2012, and 2013, when Little Anthony Portantino made our ability to carry unloaded weapons illegal. For more than 163 years, in California, a person could openly carry weapons, loaded until 1967, and unloaded until 2013. All of a sudden it is in the governments “interest” to balance your God Given Right to defense, with governments “interest” in maintaining order. Criminals don’t follow the law. Criminals are already barred from weapons possession. Whom, one may ask is the government subjecting to this “order” they want to maintain? The answer is easy....it’s YOU!

California Sheriffs are not the end all of law enforcement in our state, as they may or may not be in others. In California, Sheriffs work for the Attorney General. The Attorney General runs Cal DOJ. DOJ produces regulations and paperwork for your mother may I slips to carry concealed, or openly as permitted open carry is all that is left to us according to our masters in Sacramento. The legislature has instructed DOJ that it has given Sheriffs and Police Chiefs the authority to decide “who may carry”, and (who may not), in order to protect its “delicately balanced” system designed to protect individual rights against the state’s interest in “maintaining order”.

Concealed carry is NOT a right. Cert denied in Peruta, end of story. There are only two ways to carry the gun. Openly or concealed. This nonsense, in my opinion, about “public” carry is designed by the state as a ruse to obscure the facts and denigrate the Right to a permission. There is no law against, carry in you home whether you have the gun in your bathrobe pocket or strapped to your hip over your PJs. Never has been. Open carry, the Right to wear bear or carry a loaded weapon in public for use offensively, or defensively, in the event of conflict with another person is the core Right guaranteed by the Second Amendment and further the Right Declares That It Shall Not Be Infringed.

PC 26150 (b)(2), and 26155 (b)(2), codify, in the state’s opinion, the only lawful avenue to ordinary citizens to Second Amendment guaranteed Rights, (concealed carry is not a Right. It is a permission at the whim of the state).

We have the Right, we know this. But what good is the Right, when no jurisdiction capable of issuing the permit, has ever done so.....not even one!
Further, what good is the Right when it ends in arrest at the county line on the way to Costco? What good is the Right, when one would have to apply in all 30 jurisdictions separately,(only 30 counties out of 58 have less than 200,000 populations. If you live in the other 28 counties you hav NO second Amendment Right at all). One would have to live in all of them simultaneously, (establish residence), Pay, and train, in all of them separately, convince thirty sheriffs or police chiefs that you have “good cause”, and finally sprout wings to fly over the counties in the middle to avoid arrest.

Look.... there is too much to say here. I will not engage in the circular firing squad where conservatives stand around and shoot each other in the foot because someone thinks their case is better. I applaud every patriot group or law firm trying to restore the Liberty we the people have allowed the state to take from us. I have never met Mr Michel and have never spoken to him. I don’t know why he thinks he knows what our motives are for this suit, don’t care. I say a rising tide floats all boats. I don’t care who wins, let’s just win!
Our group applauds any and all patriots who stand up and put the pressure on!
If you don’t agree with what we are doing, God bless you, and go follow you own path, but all any of us can ask is that you do no harm to anyone trying to do anything to restore our God given gifts.

Please if interested, read the complaint carefully. Constructive critique is welcome. Honest questions are welcome. My self or some one involved will monitor the site and we are happy and willing to engage. If conservatives, Christians, and gun owners would stop the circular firing squad, and start showing up to vote, contribute to cases, show up to court, we could take our state back from the liars in Sacramento in an instant.

Can you provide any proof of this? The only on point theory I am aware of is, even in the context of Federal power, the Sheriff is THE Chief Law Enforcement officer in their County.

[mcbair]

I would be very happy to supply evidence of what I have said. Are there particular points or just generally substantiate my post?

[mcbair]

California Constitution Article 5, Sec 13.....Paraphrase, The Attorney General is the highest law enforcement officer in the state and has direct supervision over all Sheriffs, and District Attorneys. I believe this will answer your question. Cal DOJ supplies all the forms, and outlines the procedures for carry “permission”.
California does not recognize your unalienable right to self defense, and in fact has stated that the state “cannot possibly allow the vast majority of lawful individuals the access to Second Amendment guarantees”, because it would upset the states balanced set of regulations designed to maintain order! California has instead of supporting and defending the Constitution, decided to “grant authority to sheriffs and police chiefs to decide who may exercise the Second Amendment and who may not. No Sheriff has ever, not even once granted, to even one single person, “government permission” to exercise your God Given Right!!

[wolfwood]

Originally Posted by FirearmFino

A month of waiting isn't a long time, especially in the Eastern District, where the court is desperate for more judges to handle the workload.

That is what ticks me off so bad about what the Dems are doing. Trump is trying to stop a crisis in the judiciary where most cases have nothing to do with ideology yet they are blocking his appointments out of pure spite. They would rather criminal defendants have their trial delayed rather than work in a bipartisan manner with our President.

[mcbair]

Well, we all agree with that but, Judge Muler has a case in front of her which by her own and the States Attorney’s admission has very few facts not already discovered. Here is he bottom line. California has a ban upon the free exercise of the Second Amendment. California by its own admission, in plain language, has stated they have given the Sheriffs and Police Chiefs the authority to decide who may and who not carry a weapon on the streets of California......doesn’t sound like shall not be infringed to me.
This question must be answered and we the people of the state demand and deserve an answer. Does the Second Amendment as it was written by our founders apply to the people of California or not? Because if the state wishes to tyrannize it own people in spite of their oath of office, their own constitution, the Constitution of the United States, then we the people need to seek self help and other remedies, to restore the liberties our fathers and grandfathers purchased with their blood, treasure and sacred honor.

[FirearmFino]

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND STATUS CONFERENCE

[mcbair]

New York Rifle and Pistol case moot....Muller and states attorney both wanted to wait and see how that case went. 7 months since the hearing and no ruling on the motion to dismiss. No ruling on the P.I. I am asking our attorney to file an ex parte motion. There is no Second Amendment in California.

[FirearmFino]

Originally Posted by mcbair

New York Rifle and Pistol case moot....Muller and states attorney both wanted to wait and see how that case went. 7 months since the hearing and no ruling on the motion to dismiss. No ruling on the P.I. I am asking our attorney to file an ex parte motion. There is no Second Amendment in California.

This is a civil case filed in the Eastern District of California, which is probably the most overwhelmed federal court in the country. It's not surprising that the decision is taking a long time.

[darkwater34]

I don't understand why we even bother with the courts with 2A issues the gun control law of 1968 was so unconstitutional and only opened up the prison gates to people who paid for their crimes and were on the road to leading a law abiding life. This law as all others controling 2A rights should be tossed out. After all criminals are not going to obey any stupid laws they are going to get the tools for doing their crimes from ilicit sources. I think of it this way if a criminal can purchase a fire legally it might put the dude on the street selling stolen guns out of business. I say use a gun to commit a crime 10 years to life no prorole period. Maybe a person would think twice before using a gun to do his dirty work. And the criminal might be afraid not knowing who may or may not have a gun. To reduce crime you have to stop making laws that punish the law abiding and quit rewarding criminals with things like zero bail, probation, and such. And start handing down harsher punishments start using the death penalty. But leave the honest hard working law abiding men and women alone. If you don't like guns that is your view your welcome to that but don't make criminals out of people who care about their 2A RIGHTS.

[mcbair]

Actually it is very surprising that this is taking so long. There is no defense, “the court is overwhelmed”. Not in Article three anywhere. Too bad the court is overwhelmed. The pre-constitutional Rights of the people who formed government to secure those same Rights cannot be subjugated because the job is time consuming. If that is truly the case then here is the answer. The default position is to affirm for the Bill of Rights, in every single case until a judge finds it convenient to do their job, or hire more judges, or do not enable states to usurp Rights to begin with by at least making a try at following USSC edit. The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Right is wholly un-dependent of the Constitution because it predates the Constitution, and the Right itself declares that it shall not be infringed. Don’t care in the least that the Ninth is the largest circuit or that its governments spend most of their time stealing power that is not theirs to take. We are the people who formed this government to secure our rights and I will never submit to tyranny because the court is very very busy.

[darkwater34]

hear hear

[mcbair]

Michael Belleselis, One of the States experts has been shown to have falsified the data used by the Becerra in an attempt to show that guns have never been “publicly carried in this nation”, and that Americans have always “had a deep distaste” for guns..... Belleselis lost his teaching job, and is now reportedly tending bar. Clayton Cramer, our expert witness researched the supposed anti firearm laws quoted by the state, and found most of them had nothing to do with guns at all! Cramer proved the State’s expert to be a fake and a fraud.
Still crickets out of the Judge. Courts are stealing our Liberty. King Newsom is stealing your Liberty and your property. California is irreparably broken!
Without the Second Amendment we have no ability to resist the tyrants and thieves in Sacramento. Please help! Contribute to the Young Case, Contribute to the Nichols case. Our case is the lowest in seniority but if you can we could use the help too! Www.tokeepandbear.com. It is time to stand.

[mcbair]

Read Clayton Cramers Article in the NRA magazine

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by mcbair

Actually it is very surprising that this is taking so long. There is no defense, “the court is overwhelmed”. Not in Article three anywhere. Too bad the court is overwhelmed. The pre-constitutional Rights of the people who formed government to secure those same Rights cannot be subjugated because the job is time consuming. If that is truly the case then here is the answer. The default position is to affirm for the Bill of Rights, in every single case until a judge finds it convenient to do their job, or hire more judges, or do not enable states to usurp Rights to begin with by at least making a try at following USSC edit. The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Right is wholly un-dependent of the Constitution because it predates the Constitution, and the Right itself declares that it shall not be infringed. Don’t care in the least that the Ninth is the largest circuit or that its governments spend most of their time stealing power that is not theirs to take. We are the people who formed this government to secure our rights and I will never submit to tyranny because the court is very very busy.

Each judge in the Eastern District has a caseload of over 900 cases, more than double the average for all federal judges. No new judicial positions have been created in four decades--and only Congress can do so. During that time, the population of the district has increased by 220%. There are only 6 judges, two of whom are retiring (and a bunch of magistrates who do not have the same level of authority as a judge). Just because this case involves the second amendment does not mean it is any more important that a thousand other cases involving alleged violations of constitutional rights. I have seen several cases in which motions to dismiss have taken a year to be decided. And last but not least, criminal cases take priority over civil cases. Thems the facts, jack, and no amount of complaining will do a thing about it.

[JP1805]

Originally Posted by mcbair

Michael Belleselis, One of the States experts has been shown to have falsified the data used by the Becerra in an attempt to show that guns have never been “publicly carried in this nation”, and that Americans have always “had a deep distaste” for guns..... Belleselis lost his teaching job, and is now reportedly tending bar. Clayton Cramer, our expert witness researched the supposed anti firearm laws quoted by the state, and found most of them had nothing to do with guns at all! Cramer proved the State’s expert to be a fake and a fraud.
Still crickets out of the Judge. Courts are stealing our Liberty. King Newsom is stealing your Liberty and your property. California is irreparably broken!
Without the Second Amendment we have no ability to resist the tyrants and thieves in Sacramento. Please help! Contribute to the Young Case, Contribute to the Nichols case. Our case is the lowest in seniority but if you can we could use the help too! Www.tokeepandbear.com. It is time to stand.

Do you have any links that show the Attorney General has used anything written or said by Michael Belleselis as evidence in this case? I have not seen any.

[mcbair]

Links? Read the case file. The state relies on a book, containing false information which purports to show numerous prohibitions against open carry of weapons. The quoted statutes have, in the main, nothing to do with guns at all. The author has been discredited as a fraud. The states evidence is fruit from the poison tree.
Will the judge do the right thing and affirm the P.I.? Doubtful. The judge is an operative of the Democrat party. Have any of you noticed the general lack of movement on any of the Second Amendment cases in California? Is anyone writing emails or inquiring in any way to court clerks, USSC, Senators, Congressman, AG Barr, the President, or taking any action at all here? Are we to be disarmed through inaction? Shall we allow the court to blame the Wuhan China virus in order to deny justice to the people? The Second Amendment is a Right of the People! Governments do not have Rights! Please help us! Vote! Ask friends and family to vote. We are very close to losing it all. The time for silence is long over. Contribute to George Young. Contribute to Charles Nichols case. Our case is junior but is also in need if we are to succeed. Www.tokeepandbear.com click contribute. You know what to do. The open question is this. Stand or not?

[JP1805]

Originally Posted by mcbair

Links? Read the case file. The state relies on a book, containing false information which purports to show numerous prohibitions against open carry of weapons. The quoted statutes have, in the main, nothing to do with guns at all. The author has been discredited as a fraud. The states evidence is fruit from the poison tree.
Will the judge do the right thing and affirm the P.I.? Doubtful. The judge is an operative of the Democrat party. Have any of you noticed the general lack of movement on any of the Second Amendment cases in California? Is anyone writing emails or inquiring in any way to court clerks, USSC, Senators, Congressman, AG Barr, the President, or taking any action at all here? Are we to be disarmed through inaction? Shall we allow the court to blame the Wuhan China virus in order to deny justice to the people? The Second Amendment is a Right of the People! Governments do not have Rights! Please help us! Vote! Ask friends and family to vote. We are very close to losing it all. The time for silence is long over. Contribute to George Young. Contribute to Charles Nichols case. Our case is junior but is also in need if we are to succeed. Www.tokeepandbear.com click contribute. You know what to do. The open question is this. Stand or not?

I have read the case file, at least those documents that are publicly available. I did not see Michael Belleselis or his book mentioned anywhere within, which is why I asked the question, but perhaps I missed it.

I am very familiar with Belleselis and the scandal because in one of the research classes I attended in grad school the professor used the Belleselis scandal as a case study in how NOT to do research and publish findings.

[FirearmFino]

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/28/2020 DENYING Plaintiffs' 14 motion for a preliminary injunction without prejudice. GRANTING in part and DENYING in part Defendants' 10 motion to dismiss as follows: Claims 5 and 6 are DISMISSED; Claims 7 and 8 are DISMISSED; Claims 9, 10, 12 and 14 are DISMISSED to the extent they rely on the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments; and The motion to dismiss is DENIED as to claim 13. Plaintiffs shall file any amended complaint within 21 days of this order. The parties shall file a joint status report regarding the future scheduling of this case within 30 days of this order.

[wolfwood]

That opinion was written to be difficult to appeal. By denying the pi based on the balance of equities prong of a pi the trial court avoids the second amendment issue being squarely before the appeals court

[mcbair]

Judge Muller, a Democrat operative used some pretty tortured logic to come to her conclusions. She says Second Amendment is evolving law. Heller quoting Cruikshank said the “Right declares that it shall not be infringed”. The Second Amendment is not law. The Second Amendment to the Constitution, the Second of the enumerated Rights is an inalienable Right given us by our God. William Blackstone called the Right of self defense, pre-governmental. He called it an absolute right. The Constitution is not a living document. It is written in words and those words Can be looked up in Webster’s 1828, ( the closest to the language in which it was written).
She cherry picks Heller as most circuits do. She Claims the Second Only protects having a weapon to protect hearth and home. Yes, true because that was the question at issue. Heller was not asking to open carry outside his home and there fore the question was not an issue. By her logic Riding a Jackass to market is unlawful because no case brought against an aircraft commander ever allowed the un permitted riding of jackasses about town. On the other hand she abjectly ignores that Heller requires Strict Scrutiny be applied to enumerated Rights. Muller embraces the Democrat two step balanced interest approach which was rejected in Heller. The judge ignores Caetano, ignores Cruikshank, and on and on...

She never alluded to the evidence presented by the expert witnesses. Ours was a trusted and experienced law enforcement official. Theirs a fraud who quoted gun laws which upon research had nothing what so ever to do with guns. She ignored the oral arguments, and most of the evidence.

She says we have a possessory and usury interest in lawfully owned property used for lawful purposes as long as it never leaves the house. She says oh the plaintiffs can carry a gun during times of dire need, but fails to allow the magic gun to be carried from home, unless blessed by a single state actor, with no right of appeal. From where will this mystical gun issue if one cannot leave the house with it.

Murdoch v Penn says Rights may not be converted to permissions.
A Right by its very nature requires and needs no permission!

She says you have a right to self defense as long as you can prove good cause.
Muller says it is not a burden on the Second Amendment to be limited to the county of the permits origin to open carry, even though no such permit has ever been issued, because you can always get a concealed permit.......even though two sheriffs have been implicated in pay for permit schemes, or the multitude of counties which don’t issue them at all, even when one can show good cause.

In Summary the Second Amendment claim survives. The procedural due process claim survives. We will either refile the P.I. or appeal it to the Ninth Circuit. We will consider all options as the case progresses.

Muller is really hoping she will be saved from having to do her job by the en banc in George Young’s case or The opinion in Charles Nichols’ case. Judge Muller remains an intellectual coward and dishonest jurist as we have found her to be in the past on several occasions during other cases she has presided over.
If you can afford to contribute please do at www.tokeepandbear.com
Please contribute to George Young’s case and also to Charles Nichols. Do this first. Those cases are senior and right now they need the money more the we do.
Having said this we can use any help you can afford to give.
None of the Gun orgs are helping us yet, they may never help.

“Liberty must at all hazard be protected. You have a right to it, derived from your maker. Even if this were not so, it was bought for you, by your fathers, with their ease, their estates, their blood, and their treasure.” Are we the generation to squander these gifts? My wife and I are not rich people but I say not on my watch...what say you? Stand for something before there is nothing left except your choice of Chains.
Mark

[nerdoboy]

BumBum - " My prediction is that this Complaint gets disposed with a quick Motion to Dismiss. "

Looks like you missed your prediction

[mcbair]

Amended complaint filed yesterday. Next move Is for summary judgement.
No facts left for discovery. The State admits that it has given the authority to Sheriffs and Police Chiefs to decide who may carry, and conversely who may not carry in California. A Right requires no permission. A permission may be denied, and is more often than not in California and is therefore not a Right. The two step interest balancing concocted by the circuit is not found in the Constitution, and has been expressly rejected in Heller. Rights may not be subject to each successive load of crooked sheriffs, politicians or judges. The point of The Bill of Rights, is to place the inalienable pre-Constitutional human rights of United States Citizens above governments ability to infringe upon them. Judging by the behavior of at least two Sheriff’s who have been caught at it, permission might be for sale to the highest bidder or campaign contributor. We don’t get the government we deserve. We get the government we allow. Please help us win this. Stand for something. Www.tokeepandbear.com to donate.

[FirearmFino]

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

[mcbair]

Another indictment for selling CCW permits in exchange for political contributions to the Santa Clara Sheriff’s campaign fund. The Sheriff takes the Fifth and so far has escaped prosecution. Concealed carry is not your right. Concealed carry is apparently for sale to the highest bidder. We have a Right, the Second Amendment to the Constitution says so in plain English. Permission is not a Right and a Right requires no permission. Please help us. We need a plaintiff in San Diego County. We are ok for now but will need more money soon. Contact www.tokeepandbear.com if you qualify and wish to become a plaintiff, or want to donate money to help with the case. Yes, I have made repeated attempts to contact San Diego gun owners with no response from them. We are in this one alone. Help if you can. Liberty first. Liberty always. Without Liberty, you won’t be allowed to keep your money or your property! Stand for something!

[mcbair]

We have once again filed our P.I. Per Mulers order once Young was Opined. There are important differences between our case and Young. Some of these we are going to save for oral if there is any. We do not expect Justice from this court. The P.I. Will be filed with the Ninth and if necessary with the USSC. We remain convinced the State has painted itself into a corner on this issue. First Young has created a Circuit split. California has legislatively banned an enumerated right. California has unconstitutionally turned an enumerated Right into a permission for which it charges a fee. California has created a permission in which a single executive branch actor has insinuated himself and denied that permission to 100 percent of the state’s citizens. California’s permit scheme is discriminatory in that even were permission granted, it would not be granted to some based upon the population. Further this this legislatively created scheme would brand lawful citizens as criminals for transporting lawfully purchased property across county lines effectively containing an enumerated Right to one’s county of residence. Nevertheless a single state executive branch actor has seen to it that not only is the Right vapid and unobtainable, but not available under the unconstitutional legislation produced specifically to make carry possible to some few in some places. The only remedy to the People of California is to strike all sections of the penal code which limit the Right to “bear” arms.
Please please contribute if you can. This is about to get expensive. So far the people of the 23 counties of Jefferson have been very generous, but we need the rest of California’s gun owners to help us carry the case.
To contribute go to www.tokeepandbear.com we have no paid staff except our Attorney. 100% goes to the legal bills.

[wchutt]

Keep up the fight Mark.

[darkwater34]

I smell REVOLUTION in the air kind of smells like a stock animal rendering plant.

[mcbair]

There is a Zoom/ Telephonic hearing tomorrow regarding the Preliminary Injunction. California has admitted that they have given all authority to Sheriffs and Police Chiefs to decide who may carry in California. California thinks that you have no Rights which are not subject to government permission.
The Ninth Circuit says the Second does not extend outside the home, but Caetano v Mass holds that Dolores Caetano had the Right to carry, and she was homeless!
Ms Caetano did NOT have a home. The Ninth says that Hawaii’s long standing denial of the Rights of its people to armed self defense is legitimate because it is hundreds of years old. California’s history is over two hundred and fifty years of unregulated open carry of loaded weapons.
California says you must get a permission slip to exercise a preconstitutional Right, but The Muscarello case declares that Rights may not be turned into permissions, nor may fees be charged for the exercise of an enumerated Right.
Public phone access to the hearing is as follows:
Phone…1-877-336-1289
Access code. 3512574#
Security code 4223#
We had intentions to also file a case in .California’s Southern District, but we cannot find an attorney willing to sponsor Ms Bellantoni. If you are an attorney and wish to sponsor Ms Bellantoni in the Southern District, please write a note to the website and some one will contact you.

Www.tokeepandbear to donate to this case.

[mcbair]

My attorney told Judge Muller that she was obligated to follow USSC directive regarding 2A precedent instead of “rogue” decisions by the ninth circuit. Judge Muler replied that it was a very troubling statement to insist that she respect the highest court in the land. Perhaps Judge Benitez could help her with the logic? She asked for case law which suggests that district court judges comply with Supreme Court directives when they differ with circuit court opinions. My attorney quoted a case but Muller did not want to hear it.
The State’s attorney’s opinion….the Second Amendment does not apply outside the house.
Open carry is our Right! Expect no justice from this judicial coward. It is a box we have checked before moving on.

We still need a sponsor in the Southern District if there is one to be had.

[johnireland]

We won't get our rights by asking for them. We have to take them.

[cre8nhavoc]

I mean, if open carry came back to California, I don't think I'd be a fan of it. Remember how it was BEFORE concealed carry? California law said you had to have it exposed AND unloaded. Weren't even allowed to have one in the chamber.

Now if that changed too then I'm on board with open carry.

[mcbair]

Concealed Carry is not a Right according to The Ninth Circuit. Concealed carry is a permission which may or may not be granted. I understand you can purchase a concealed carry permission slip from some sheriffs in exchange for thousands in campaign contributions. Some Counties won’t issue at all.
We have enumerated Rights! We know this because the Constitution has this odd little appendage called The Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment to the Constitution declares that A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Right of defense against violent criminals and tyranny, according to the Declaration of Independence and the USSC, are individual human Rights and pre-date government. If you would rather beg the government for a slip of paper to exercise the Rights given you by God, go ahead, it’s your affair. May your chains rest lightly upon you as you crouch down to lick the hand that feeds you.
For over two hundred years of Spanish, Mexican and U.S. governments, open carry of loaded weapons was totally unregulated and largely unremarkable in California. In Caetano v Mass, Ms Caetano had her right to carry a weapon outside without any form of permission upheld. The Right extends beyond the home. Ms Caetano was HOMELESS and did not have a home in which to hide. The right of defense attaches to the individual no matter where he or she may be. Perhaps it is time to reverse this tyranny and reclaim the Liberty we allowed the liars in Sacramento to take from us. And before you start don’t give me the tactical advantage argument. Hiding your firearm does not guarantee success. If my Right is open carry, I will exercise that Right!
If you have had enough of the liars and criminals in Sacramento that pass laws that do not apply to them, then stand up and DO SOMETHING to help us win these cases. Www.tokeepandbear.com to contribute. Either lead, follow or get out of the way.

[mcbair]

This deposition took hours so I’ll shorten it up
Chief Rainy believes that only uniformed Law Enforcement should “be allowed to carry weapons outside the home.
The Chief thinks it might be a little different in the Rural Counties north of Fresno because “those people up there might be more used to it”.
Rainy admits he knows nothing about open carry
Has never done any research into open carry.
Knows nothing about the operational pros or cons of open carry in any of the 45 states that have open carry.
He has no knowledge of any law enforcement jurisdiction outside LA County.
He never had any trouble with people engaged in unloaded open carry, nor can he remember any calls regarding unlawful activity of people open carrying.
Chief has no clue how California functioned during over a Century and a half of totally unrestricted Constitutional carry proper to 1967.
Chief says “to my knowledge firearms have never been allowed, at least, in relatively modern history”. ( my words, for less than the last ten years).
Chief claims he does not know what Constitutional carry means.
Chief says the Second Amendment says “ something about keep and bear arms”.
Chiefs says Second Amendment means, “ you can get a gun and keep it at home”.

Chief openly admits:
Every lawful individual possesses the Right to self defense.
The Right to self defense attaches to the individual and not to the home.
The Right to self defense exists no matter where the individual happens to be.
Chief says he would never give an individual permission to carry based upon self defense, “because everyone could make that claim.

We will win this case if I can afford to pay. Time to stand! Please help!
Donate to P.E.C.A.N 14421 Old Oregon Trail Ste B, Redding CA 96003
Please put 2A on subject line of your check. 100 percent goes to attorney.
No paid staff, we pay all our own expenses.

[homelessdude]

Chief is an uninformed idiot. Vote his *** out of office. If he was appointed vote their ***** out and replace him.

[FirearmFino]

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/2/2021 STAYING this matter pending a decision from the United States Supreme Court in the matter of NYSRPA v. Bruen, Case No. 20-843. CASE STAYED.

[eho0925]

Chiefs like this clown, and hundreds more like him are a joke and threat to the Constitution. It doesn’t surprise me that a current CLEO would be so ignorant to an inalienable right.