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

[pacrat]

Default State’s expert deposed

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.

mcbair;

Please enlighten us readers just who this "egg spurt" is, and where he is a "chief".

enquiring minds thing.

[mcbair]

Rainey was the Chief of police in Covina CA. He is the State’s expert witness in an open carry case although says he admits that he knows nothing about open carry. He claims his expertise is “Public Policy”. Police Chiefs are appointed officials, usually hired by City Managers, who are also appointed. Neither are elected by the people yet both are apparently in charge of your Right to self defense if you live in an incorporated city. Rainey never issued a carry permit to anyone except reserve officers during his time as chief. Rainey said although everyone has the Right to self defense outside the home, it is “bad Public Policy to allow law abiding citizens to carry firearms”. What is Public Policy? To The State of California and it’s communist minions it is what ever rules they impose upon you to ensure that you and your families remain compliant subjects of the state.
Have you had enough tyranny yet? Time to Stand!

[mcbair]

Hearing on P.I. To enjoin enforcement of P.C 25850, (the ban on the open carry of a loaded pistol outside the house.), and P.C. 26350, ( the ban on open carry of an unloaded pistol outside the house), will be at 9am in Federal Court in Sacramento. The address is 501 I Street, Sacramento. Third floor court room.
The States logic is essentially this…..since the State may allow concealed carry, why does anyone need the Right to open carry? In essence, California can ban open carry as long as it “allows” concealed carry. Bruen is explicit and the language is plain. If an individuals conduct complies with the plain text of the Second Amendment, that conduct is presumptively Constitutional. The Second Amendment in an individual right, which predates the Constitution. California has never had any restriction on open carry of loaded weapons until 1968. There is no history of any sort that the state has alleged which prohibits the unrestricted, un permitted open carry of loaded or unloaded weapons. In the States opposition to our P.I. They used interest balancing, and the states desire to “reduce gun violence, which is logic expressly rejected in Bruen. I won’t go on and on but you can go to court listener to read our rebuttal. None of the gun orgs are helping us!
None of the big gun bloggers have even mentioned this case. If you want to continue to beg the government or bribe a sheriff to allow you permission to carry, that is your business. If you want to regain the Right to keep and bear arms, please consider helping me. Show up to court on the 4th if you can. If you cannot please donate to the case by sending a check with 2A on the memo line to P.E.C.A.N. ( the charity that handles all the money), at 14441 Old Oregon Trail suite B, Redding CA 96003. 100% of all money goes to the Lawyer. We have no paid staff except 10 bucks a month to the book keeper. We can win this. Please stand with me and the people of the 23 counties of Jefferson who have been helping me fund this case. It is our Right!!!

[mcbair]

It looks like I forgot the date…Nov 4th for the hearing.

[pacrat]

Thanks for the update.

With NYSRPA v Bruen now the predominant 2A Federal Court precedent. Hopefully we can all in the near future carry anyway we choose. Without any unconstitutional government permission slip required.

Best of Luck.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by mcbair

It looks like I forgot the date…Nov 4th for the hearing.

Thats this coming Friday.

[mcbair]

Hearing tomorrow, Nov 4th, 9 am. 501 I Street, Sacramento in Judge Mueller’s courtroom. State’s final opposition to our P.I. Is as follows, (doc is available free on Court listener).
State’s Attorney; We, (the state),deny everything. The case law you, (plaintiffs) state is the case law unless it isn’t. There is already a remedy in place, (beg or bribe a sheriff or police chief, who may or may not grant permission to carry, sometimes in some places if you jump through enough hoops). We, ( state), claim that Bruen guidance in no way hinders California from doing whatever it wants regards an enumerated Right.
Finally we, (the state), ask this court to dismiss with prejudice and we want the Plaintiff to pay for our time even though his tax dollars already pay for our time.
In short….Don’t you peons ever dare to question your masters in Sacramento or we will break you financially and in any other way we can.
Please stand with me tomorrow! If you cannot attend, please help with a donation at www.tokeepandbear.com

[lairdb]

Since @mcbair didn't post a link and "www.tokeepandbear.com" is apparently defunct:

Baird v. Bonta (2:19-cv-00617) on CourtListener

[ritter]

Wishing you the best of luck today! This should be a slam dunk. I think we all know it won't be.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by mcbair

Hearing tomorrow, Nov 4th, 9 am. 501 I Street, Sacramento in Judge Mueller’s courtroom.

[N0b0dy]

What happened? Motion for injunction withdrawn, discovery reopened - shall be completed by 8/4/2023???

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by N0b0dy

What happened? Motion for injunction withdrawn, discovery reopened - shall be completed by 8/4/2023???

Sounds like it is tentatively going to trial next fall.

Have a sandwich and a nap….

[gunuser17]

MINUTES for MOTION HEARING and SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held before Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/4/2022, and FRCP 16 BENCH ORDER: Plaintiffs' Counsel, Amy Bellantoni, present. Defendants' Counsel, Ryan Davis and R. Matthew Wise, present. The court heard oral arguments on the pending Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, at ECF No. 65, and discussed case scheduling. The court also confirmed that the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, at ECF No. 40, and the Motion for Summary Judgment, at ECF No. 56, are WITHDRAWN. After careful consideration of the parties' comments, the court ORDERED the following pre-trial case schedule: fact discovery is reopened and shall be completed by 5/12/2023; expert disclosures shall be completed by 6/9/2023; rebuttal expert witnesses shall be exchanged by 7/14/2023; all expert discovery shall be completed by 8/4/2023; and all dispositive motions, except for motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders or other emergency applications, shall be heard by 9/22/2023. Motions regarding discovery shall be noticed before the Magistrate Judge, as provided by Local Rule 302(c). This case schedule will become final without further order of the court unless objections are filed within fourteen (14) calendar days of this order. The schedule, once final, shall not be modified except by leave of court upon showing of good cause. All provisions of the court's standing scheduling order for Civil Cases filed concurrently herewith are incorporated therein. SO ORDERED. Court Reporter: Maryann Velanoti. (Text Only Entry) (Schultz, C) (Entered: 11/04/2022)

[ritter]

6 months for fact findings? Seriously, what other facts need to be found?

[JDoe]

The California slow walk.


#Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
#Let’s go Brandon!
#FJB

[press1280]

Yea not sure what more fact finding can be done. Perhaps more likely examining Bruen and how the OC law squares with Bruen (or doesn't).

[mcbair]

Motion for injunction was not withdrawn. I repeat our motion for P.I. Was not withdrawn! We had asked for a P.I. A year ago which Mueller never ruled on. Yes she sat on it for a year. When we refiledwith the Bruen guidance, we also refiled another P.I. The judge asked us to pull the first one since it was redundant. Our next effort with the Bruen guidance was much stronger anyway. Our P.I. Was taken under consideration.
We will file an objection to the discovery schedule. The state never asked for more discovery in their filings. There are no new facts. No more discovery is required. The state does not dispute the facts in evidence….they just don’t like them and do not want to comply. The state wants everyone who Carrie’s in California to beg for permission and try to get a may issue license after jumping through all the hoops. Here is our case as argued. Concealed carry is NOT a right. Peruta 2 says it is a permission which states can ban or restrict in any way it wishes. Peruta 2 says if there is a Right it must be open carry.
We have the Right to carry. We know this because the Constitution says so in plain English and the Right itself declares that it shall not be infringed.
We are asking to strike 25850, and 26350, the open carry of loaded or unloaded handguns. Judge Mueller asked my attorney if she thought we could win on the merits, (the Winters test). My attorney replied that we “will win on the merits because the conduct plaintiff seeks falls squarely within the plain text of the Second Amendment and is therefore Constitutionally protected”.
States Attorney was stammering at this point that what we really wanted was to throw out All of California’s license schemes. My attorney replied that was not what we wanted. We want un permitted, unrestricted open carry for which California had no license, and for which no license could be required because when the Second amendment was adopted there was no such thing as a license to carry. California’s behavior toward open carry absolutely fails the Bruen test, period end of discussion. California AG’s response is that the state cannot allow people to carry weapons in public without some sort of license, in other words without state control. California is in violation of Cal Constitution A1, S1, A2, S1, A3, S1, u.S. Constitution Amendment 2, 42USC Sec 1983, and any enforcement of the Second Amendment Ban is a crime under 18USC s241, 242.
Bruen is clear. State argued for license for Public safety reasons…..off the table under Bruin. State argued for balanced interest…off the table under Bruin.
State wants a license of some kind for everyone who carries anywhere, anytime.
Bruen rejects state regulation which cannot be traced back to 1791.
State argued for rejection of P.I. To preserve status quo.
The status quo in California and the United States at large was for open carry with no restrictions and in California we had Constitutional Carry until 1968 when the State unlawfully usurped an enumerated Right.
If P.I. Is denied we will immediately appeal to appellate court and then appeal P.I. To the USSC. Our biggest battle is to stop this court from dragging this out until I’m dead or out of money. We are winning here. The state’s best argument is that Bruen really didn’t change anything in California and that USSC is all for licenses. New York is getting handed its *** right now with those same theories.

We will win as long as I can pay. If you want Liberty restored please help.
Www.tokeepandbear.com to contribute. Our objection to the schedule must be filed in the next 14 days. Look at it this way. If we can get the P.I. Affirmed we will have Constitutional carry for the next fifteen years while the court takes its time trying to figure out how to please the people in
Sacramento who own you. As for me….I carry anyway because it is my pre governmental, God given Right. It would be nice to vindicate the Right. It is ours, not theirs!

[wchutt]

To hear Mark discuss the case:

http://apps.kcnr1460.com/media//podc...2022-11-06.mp3

[mcbair]

Objection filed to the court imposed reopening of discovery. The state never asked to reopen discovery. The state has had ample time to conduct discovery and failed to do so. This is a legal question not a historic question. Does the conduct I seek fall within the plain text of the Second Amendment? The answer to this legal question is an unqualified yes! Peruta 2, ( en banc), declares that concealed carry falls wholly outside the Second Amendment and is merely a privilege. Therefore PC 25850, and 26350 are outright bans of an enumerated right. No facts can be presented which justify the ban of an enumerated right. The government has already spent three years with thousands of citations trying to do so. The state asked for summary judgement and stated there were no new facts to discover going into our most recent motion hearing. The judge offered a reopening of discovery to them that the state had not asked for. A clear violation of Federal rule 16. This is a simple case at law. We know we have a right to keep and bear arms….the Constitution says so in plain English. The Ninth Circuit has affirmed that that right does NOT include concealed carry! There are only two ways to carry, openly or concealed. Per Bruin, no history, no discovery, no amount of delay or legal maneuvering can dispute the plain meaning of the text and the text over rules in any case. The Second Amendment is not a second class right. The conduct we seek clearly and fully falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment. The government must bear the full and complete burden to prove otherwise!

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by mcbair

The judge offered a reopening of discovery to them that the state had not asked for.

As i said, the courts will literally fix any failings in the State's case for them.

They're totally corrupt.

[mcbair]

The judge can only do one of two things. Rule that there is no right to carry at all, an argument rejected by USSC in Young V Hawaii. She is bound to Ninth Circuit precedent thus concealed carry is off the table as an option. She and all other Article 3 courts are bound by USSC opinions and rulings, therefore her second choice is to rule for plaintiffs and strike 25850, and 26400. Most Eastern District judges are Democrat party operatives and may well thumb their noses at law, rights, and court precedent to boot. If that is the case we will appeal both the P.I. And the case as well if need be. I have been in front of this judge many times both as a plaintiff and a cop. Watching her body language during the oral arguments for the P.I. I could see she was convicted by our case. She is squirming as to what to do with this. We are right, and she knows it! She is just not sure how to make this work for her? The state’s attorney and the DOJ is horrified that people could carry a firearm for self defense with out permission from our betters. It’s a funny take but I sat there and watched Ryan Davis stumble and stutter about how all we wanted was to destroy and eliminate California’s carefully constructed licensing scheme. “Do you mean just anyone could carry a gun without a license?” What a horror to a tyrannical state that the people they are supposed to serve have Rights that are above governments permission! Please help me! If I can pay, I will win!
If you can help, put 2A in the memo line of your check..the charity that pays the bills has more than one account.
Send to:
PECAN
14421 Old Oregon Trail suite B
Redding CA 96003
100% goes to Lawyer. There are no paid staff except 10 bucks a month for book keeper. I can win with your help!

[TruOil]

The Ninth Circuit ruling in Peruta that there is no 2A right to a concealed carry permit is implicitly overruled by Bruen, although licensing may be required.

[mcbair]

I disagree. The state has made no such argument. Cert was denied in Peruta. The may issue, extraordinary circumstance, moral turpitude, expensive, time consuming delay may certainly be challenged constitutionally but no one is making the claim that Peruta has been set aside to my knowledge.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by mcbair

I disagree. The state has made no such argument. Cert was denied in Peruta. The may issue, extraordinary circumstance, moral turpitude, expensive, time consuming delay may certainly be challenged constitutionally but no one is making the claim that Peruta has been set aside to my knowledge.

The State will not make the argument, but maybe you should. Peruta held there is no right to a CCW, and Young v. Hawaii took that a step further and said there is no right to bear arms outside the home. In NYS, you cannot carry concealed without a permit any more than you can carry concealed without a permit in California. Bruen held that the second amendment guarantees a right under the 2A to bear arms outside the home, and that therefore issuance of a permit cannot require a showing of good cause. This contradicts everything that Peruta said, and as a result, Peruta was implicitly overruled. Young v. Hawaii relied in part on Peruta (in holding there was not right to carry outside the home), and as we know, the Supreme Court overruled and remanded Young. Therefore, to the extent that Peruta held that there is no right to carry a concealed firearm, it is no longer valid law.

[mcbair]

Respectfully, I don’t understand your argument. We seek conduct which clearly falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment. Rights do not require permission. Permissions are not Rights. None of the other enumerated rights require a mother may I slip. Why would anyone seek permission of those trying to strip us of our Liberty, to exercise the Liberty our masters hate and despise? You may have noticed that P.C. 26150, and 26155 read exactly the same as it did pre NYSRPA, which is to say may issue, show just cause etc, etc. Peruta says what it says, and no court has declared it set aside, nor has any case law issued from Peruta’s demise that I am aware of. The Bruen test is clear and unambiguous. Conduct which complies with the plain text of the amendment is presumptively constitutional. The burden falls squarely and fully upon the government to prove that the regulations they impose upon the people were widely held and accepted by the people in 1791. No license, no such restrictions existed regards open carry in California nor in the nation dates back to the founding era. It was unregulated, and unremarkable to openly carry loaded weapons in California for over 150 years until 1967. There is no justification which can be raised to justify the ban on an enumerated right then or now. I have no interest in concealed carry. I am neither for nor against anyone who wants permission to conceal a weapon. Good luck, and I hope your Sheriff is not one that requires too big a bribe. California in its zeal to regulate or ban everything 2nd Amendment has painted itself into a corner and they know it!
It is a violation of penal code to openly carry a loaded weapon outside your door into any public space. There are NO historic regulations which date from 1791 to support this. We will win. California in its arrogance thinks some how it can use the same old public safety guilt card to regulate our unalienable right to defense.
Once again, the state is horrified that lawful citizens will be able to defend themselves with out government permission. The government has no duty to protect. The Second Amendment is your Right.
Young was GVR and since has been settled if the rumors are true? Why on earth would I want to ask permission to exercise a pre-governmental Right? The Bruen case was a concealed carry case, and thus open carry was not addressed directly. However Bruen also did address jurisprudence with regards to 2nd Amendment cases generally.

[GetMeCoffee]

I'm not sure if I am fully following this or not, but I think I'm understanding what both of you are saying.

Since mcbair seems to have cornered the court (I'm being optimistic), why would he want to open up CCW as an avenue of escape by arguing that Peruta has been overturned? Perhaps the State would make that argument so that the judge can leave 25850 and 26400 intact. They'd be admitting that CCW is shall-issue, but that genie is already out.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by GetMeCoffee

I'm not sure if I am fully following this or not, but I think I'm understanding what both of you are saying.

Since mcbair seems to have cornered the court (I'm being optimistic), why would he want to open up CCW as an avenue of escape by arguing that Peruta has been overturned? Perhaps the State would make that argument so that the judge can leave 25850 and 26400 intact. They'd be admitting that CCW is shall-issue, but that genie is already out.

Bonta admitted as much in his portion of the status report, although he did argue to the sheriffs that letters of recommendation and "good moral character" could still be required. The Portantino CCW bill that did not make it to a vote last session but will be reintroduced in some form did not contain a "good moral character" provision.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by mcbair

Respectfully, I don’t understand your argument. We seek conduct which clearly falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment. Rights do not require permission. Permissions are not Rights. None of the other enumerated rights require a mother may I slip. Why would anyone seek permission of those trying to strip us of our Liberty, to exercise the Liberty our masters hate and despise? You may have noticed that P.C. 26150, and 26155 read exactly the same as it did pre NYSRPA, which is to say may issue, show just cause etc, etc. Peruta says what it says, and no court has declared it set aside, nor has any case law issued from Peruta’s demise that I am aware of. The Bruen test is clear and unambiguous. Conduct which complies with the plain text of the amendment is presumptively constitutional. The burden falls squarely and fully upon the government to prove that the regulations they impose upon the people were widely held and accepted by the people in 1791. No license, no such restrictions existed regards open carry in California nor in the nation dates back to the founding era. It was unregulated, and unremarkable to openly carry loaded weapons in California for over 150 years until 1967. There is no justification which can be raised to justify the ban on an enumerated right then or now. I have no interest in concealed carry. I am neither for nor against anyone who wants permission to conceal a weapon. Good luck, and I hope your Sheriff is not one that requires too big a bribe. California in its zeal to regulate or ban everything 2nd Amendment has painted itself into a corner and they know it!
It is a violation of penal code to openly carry a loaded weapon outside your door into any public space. There are NO historic regulations which date from 1791 to support this. We will win. California in its arrogance thinks some how it can use the same old public safety guilt card to regulate our unalienable right to defense.
Once again, the state is horrified that lawful citizens will be able to defend themselves with out government permission. The government has no duty to protect. The Second Amendment is your Right.
Young was GVR and since has been settled if the rumors are true? Why on earth would I want to ask permission to exercise a pre-governmental Right? The Bruen case was a concealed carry case, and thus open carry was not addressed directly. However Bruen also did address jurisprudence with regards to 2nd Amendment cases generally.

I cannot see the Ninth or SCOTUS for that matter concluding that there is an unconditional right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. In fact, whether or not a "permit" is required, SCOTUS has essentially concluded (in dicta to be sure) that a right to keep and/or bear may be conditioned as to time, place and manner/ "sensitive places", and on further condition that the bearer have no felony convictions or involuntary mental health admissions. All that a "shall issue" permit does, at that point, is assure the government that you are not under a disability from keeping or bearing.

My point was simply that Bruen held that there is a right to bear arms outside the home. It did not address open carry, but the same conditional use arguments apply. For example, you do not need a permit to openly or concealed carry in unincorporated areas (with a few limited exceptions), but that doesn't mean that felons regain their right to go hunting after release. By the same token, open carry bans in incorporated areas date back to the period after the Civil War.

[GetMeCoffee]

Originally Posted by TruOil

I cannot see the Ninth or SCOTUS for that matter concluding that there is an unconditional right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. In fact, whether or not a "permit" is required, SCOTUS has essentially concluded (in dicta to be sure) that a right to keep and/or bear may be conditioned as to time, place and manner/ "sensitive places", and on further condition that the bearer have no felony convictions or involuntary mental health admissions. All that a "shall issue" permit does, at that point, is assure the government that you are not under a disability from keeping or bearing.

My point was simply that Bruen held that there is a right to bear arms outside the home. It did not address open carry, but the same conditional use arguments apply. For example, you do not need a permit to openly or concealed carry in unincorporated areas (with a few limited exceptions), but that doesn't mean that felons regain their right to go hunting after release. By the same token, open carry bans in incorporated areas date back to the period after the Civil War.

So the effect is (see emphasis above) that the State can place conditions on open carry, or on concealed carry, or on both - so long as the conditions allow unencumbered carry of some type (unencumbered meaning per conditions rooted in applicable history).

But this is not the current situation in CA. The State says you need GMC, GC and permission for CCW. This case is not questioning that. Since CCW is encumbered, it follows that OC cannot be encumbered (one mode needs to be unencumbered). So I understand mcbair's comment that there are only two ways out. Either 25850, 26350 and 26400(?) get stricken, or the State un-encumbers CCW so that 25850 et al can stand.) All that said, I'm sure I missed some nuance.

[mcbair]

We are not attacking California’s licensing scheme. It is irrelevant to our case.
Time, place and manner restrictions have historically and consistently regulated “concealed carry”, per all of the history in Heller, NYSRPA, McDonald, and Caetano, and the literally hundreds of cases cited in those cases! There are more than 100 pages of history in Heller and McDonald alone and another fifty or sixty pages of history in NYSRPA. This is no longer a question of history. It is strictly a legal question per Justice Thomas. We were not targeting “sensitive places” generally at least, but NYSRPA a was pretty clear on that as well. We are not targeting concealed carry permission. Once again, NONE OF THE OTHER ENUMERATED RIGHTS REQUIRE GOVERNMENT PERMISSION! Permissions are not rights. On this, the plain text of the Second Amendment, squarely covers the conduct we seek and NO license, nor permit, nor pre-permission has ever been discovered to be widely held or held at all to be acceptable to the people who had just fought their own government to restore God given Rights. According to NYSRPA no branch of government, not even the third branch may interfere with an enumerated right. The state never asked for additional discovery. The state asked for summary judgement stating that all the facts were in…..that is until the judge planted doubt in their argument, and then unilaterally gave them more time. We have objected to this abuse of discretion and abuse of power. Ryan Davis lied in court when he said that “just anyone would be able to carry”. A few minutes later he quietly modified his statement to reflect the truth. Only law abiding citizens with no other prohibitory record to firearm ownership will be able to carry. There are Penal Codes to handle the crooks. There is no license to openly carry a loaded weapon. There is no such license. There has never ever been an open carry license issued nationally or in California for the general public to openly carry. According to the plain text of the Second Amendment no license is required because the Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
As far as Bonta is concerned, I saw the memo to issuing agencies…..it means literally nothing. It has no force in penal code. The penal codes for concealed carry have not changed and the last time I looked the AG may not make new law.
SB 918 did not pass. Little Anthony Portantino may or may not write another bill.
The Second Circuit has already declared various provisions of it “new law” unconstitutional four time since NYSRPA. Bonta and his goons have illegally dumper gun and CCW owners private information onto the internet twice. Do you really trust these liars with your Liberty. I do not! We will win! The conduct I seek falls squarely within the plain text of the Second Amendment and no historic barrier to that has been shown. The state has not tried to dispute the facts we state….they just don’t like them. They don’t like you or I having responsibility for our Rights or futures. This train is leaving the station. How many of you are in the train, and how many are tied to the tracks? Please help financially if you can and you agree with this case. If you cannot or don’t agree, God Bless you anyway.

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by TruOil

I cannot see the Ninth or SCOTUS for that matter concluding that there is an unconditional right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. In fact, whether or not a "permit" is required, SCOTUS has essentially concluded (in dicta to be sure) that a right to keep and/or bear may be conditioned as to time, place and manner/ "sensitive places", and on further condition that the bearer have no felony convictions or involuntary mental health admissions. All that a "shall issue" permit does, at that point, is assure the government that you are not under a disability from keeping or bearing.

My point was simply that Bruen held that there is a right to bear arms outside the home. It did not address open carry, but the same conditional use arguments apply. For example, you do not need a permit to openly or concealed carry in unincorporated areas (with a few limited exceptions), but that doesn't mean that felons regain their right to go hunting after release. By the same token, open carry bans in incorporated areas date back to the period after the Civil War.

Since we're being honest and thorough, you'd admit those Jim Crow restrictions were just that - and certainly not common or applied broadly. Right?

[abinsinia]

Open carry bans would have to exist at the founding era to be considered long standing. Any Civil War era laws could only be used to confirm the founding era laws.

Mark Smth has done long explanations of this on his channel.

https://www.youtube.com/@TheFourBoxesDiner

[1911su16b870]

I would guess open carry prohibitions would also be found unconstitutional under history, text, tradition standards...except those old timey western towns where there were ordnances to "turn in y-all heaters" when you entered them...

[mcbair]

The Judge has denied our objection to her unilaterally imposed extension of almost an additional year for the state to discover facts, the state does not claim to need. Our amended complaint was narrowed, not expanded! The Judge has invited us to file for Summary Judgement. We will do so.
We never expected Justice from this court. We just need a ruling to be able to move the case to a higher court. This judge has already violated Ninth Circuit directive, she has violated USSC directive, she has violated local and federal rules of procedure. As I have stated before, I have been in her court many times and the result is always the same. She is a better advocate for the state than DOJ is.
Our last request for P.I. Sat for over a year with no ruling. The state does not dispute the facts in evidence. The state moved for summary judgement prior to our last motion hearing and the Judge talked them into withdrawing their motion after which she gave them eleven months they never asked for to find history that the state has never discovered in the last four years.
Why is the unalienable, pre-governmental, unfettered right to self defense absolutely required to our Liberty? Two reasons. Number one, it is yours and no government, no judge, no legislature, no unelected bureaucrat, has the authority or jurisdiction to take it from you! As I have said before…..the state does not dispute the facts in evidence, they just don’t like the idea that lawful, law abiding citizens just might have rights the need no permission to exercise. It is really their only argument. The state has not argued against open carry. They are simply horrified that you will be able to lawfully engage in a practice without the blessing of your betters! Before I get to reason two, I want to reiterate that people who want to beg permission of a single state actor, with no right of appeal, or in some jurisdictions to bribe a state agent for permission which may or may not get you this vapid and transparent permission are welcome to it. May your chains rest lightly upon you….feel free to kneel and lick the hand that feeds you!
Reason two: if the conduct of an individual complies with the plain text of the amendment, that conduct is presumptively constitutional. If the state does not like the plain text of the Bill of Rights there is an amendment process in Article five of the United States Constitution. The Article Three Supreme Court has spoken. The Article Three “inferior” courts must abide by those rulings. No amount of lying, or political and legal maneuvering will change the fact. We have openly carried loaded and unloaded weapons in California and in this nation for hundreds of years. In 1967 the California government stripped us of that Right in order to prevent urban Black people from carrying weapons….not legal, and certainly not constitutional!

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by mcbair

We are not attacking California’s licensing scheme. It is irrelevant to our case.
Time, place and manner restrictions have historically and consistently regulated “concealed carry”, per all of the history in Heller, NYSRPA, McDonald, and Caetano, and the literally hundreds of cases cited in those cases! There are more than 100 pages of history in Heller and McDonald alone and another fifty or sixty pages of history in NYSRPA. This is no longer a question of history. It is strictly a legal question per Justice Thomas. We were not targeting “sensitive places” generally at least, but NYSRPA a was pretty clear on that as well. We are not targeting concealed carry permission. Once again, NONE OF THE OTHER ENUMERATED RIGHTS REQUIRE GOVERNMENT PERMISSION! Permissions are not rights. On this, the plain text of the Second Amendment, squarely covers the conduct we seek and NO license, nor permit, nor pre-permission has ever been discovered to be widely held or held at all to be acceptable to the people who had just fought their own government to restore God given Rights. According to NYSRPA no branch of government, not even the third branch may interfere with an enumerated right. The state never asked for additional discovery. The state asked for summary judgement stating that all the facts were in…..that is until the judge planted doubt in their argument, and then unilaterally gave them more time. We have objected to this abuse of discretion and abuse of power. Ryan Davis lied in court when he said that “just anyone would be able to carry”. A few minutes later he quietly modified his statement to reflect the truth. Only law abiding citizens with no other prohibitory record to firearm ownership will be able to carry. There are Penal Codes to handle the crooks. There is no license to openly carry a loaded weapon. There is no such license. There has never ever been an open carry license issued nationally or in California for the general public to openly carry. According to the plain text of the Second Amendment no license is required because the Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
As far as Bonta is concerned, I saw the memo to issuing agencies…..it means literally nothing. It has no force in penal code. The penal codes for concealed carry have not changed and the last time I looked the AG may not make new law.
SB 918 did not pass. Little Anthony Portantino may or may not write another bill.
The Second Circuit has already declared various provisions of it “new law” unconstitutional four time since NYSRPA. Bonta and his goons have illegally dumper gun and CCW owners private information onto the internet twice. Do you really trust these liars with your Liberty. I do not! We will win! The conduct I seek falls squarely within the plain text of the Second Amendment and no historic barrier to that has been shown. The state has not tried to dispute the facts we state….they just don’t like them. They don’t like you or I having responsibility for our Rights or futures. This train is leaving the station. How many of you are in the train, and how many are tied to the tracks? Please help financially if you can and you agree with this case. If you cannot or don’t agree, God Bless you anyway.

First, let me say that it does not appear that you are listening to TruOil and what he has said, because you have your own particular agenda. So, in 4 sentences or less just what are you advocating?

[mcbair]

I am advocating for open carry of a loaded or unloaded handgun, by lawful, law abiding citizens just as it was from the founding of this state and this nation.
No license, no permission required.

[DolphinFan]

Originally Posted by mcbair

I am advocating for open carry of a loaded or unloaded handgun, by lawful, law abiding citizens just as it was from the founding of this state and this nation.
No license, no permission required.

I agree and support your statement 100%.

I also think the decision says we have the right to carry, it doesn't state a mode. I believe the mode of carry is up to the individual, just as it is with the other Amendments.
So, I don't think the state has the authority under the 10th Amendment to regulate the mode of carry.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by mcbair

I am advocating for open carry of a loaded or unloaded handgun, by lawful, law abiding citizens just as it was from the founding of this state and this nation.
No license, no permission required.

Ok, that is fair. You want California to become Idaho. You are probably not alone with that desire. While those of us in Idaho can open carry, most prefer to concealed carry, so it is unlikely you will find much support among most of those that can or want to carry in CA. However, one of the benefits of open carry is that one does not have to worry about printing. What is interesting is the lack of attention those that are open carrying in grocery stores attract. If you're asking to be like Idaho, why stop at handguns? Open carry of ARs and AKs with loaded 30 rnd mags?

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by mcbair

This judge has already violated Ninth Circuit directive, she has violated USSC directive, she has violated local and federal rules of procedure... She is a better advocate for the state than DOJ is.

I don't know how many times I've said exactly this in other cases.

It is worth remembering this corruption is the rule, not the exception.

Forum shopping is literally the only way to win.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

Since we're being honest and thorough, you'd admit those Jim Crow restrictions were just that - and certainly not common or applied broadly. Right?

They were enforced in Texas against everyone, as I recall. And it took over a century to get them rescinded. But yes, most in the south were racist in origin and intent. Texas was a special case where the military authorities had good reason to suspect breaches of the peace against Union soldiers.