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

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by GetMeCoffee

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.

With respect to a "shall issue" permit to carry, it is not the carrying that is being encumbered so much as the particular individual who is doing the carrying. Under current law (and no, I have no idea how far back those laws go) felons have lost their civil rights, including their rights under the Second Amendment (along with loss of the right to vote, only recently modified in a few jurisdictions). However, GC (which is history) GMC (which will be gone soon enough) and training requirements are constitutionally suspect as are letters of referral and all the other rigamarole that the southern counties require. Do you believe that felons shold be allowed to carry firearms without restriction? What about adjudicated paranoid schizophrenics?

As a separate point, some sensitive places restrictions go back a long way. For example, it is illegal to carry a loaded firearm into the Senate Chamber or into the cloak room, the result of a gunfight in the latter location due to overheated politics. Restrictions on carry in or near polling places go back well into the 19th century as a remedy to regular occurrences of voter intimidation. Bruen suggests that some LIMITED restrictions on when and where will pass scrutiny. For example, bans on public transportation are likely to fall, as well as carry in parks and most public buildings or open spaces. But schools and courthouses will likely remain., even if not complying with the Bruen standard.

On the other hand, restrictions against carry in court rooms, at least in California, are not only of recent origin, they are nonstatutory court imposed rules; the Penal Code allows the carrying of firearms in court houses. Bans on loaded firearms in the California Capital building only go back to 1969. Those, and the ban on carry in schools, also new, are constitutionally suspect under Bruen, but are a tough nut to get rescinded by court order.

[mcbair]

Reconstruction history was abjectly rejected by NYSRPA with a narrow exception to history which is used to confirm the founding history in 1791. The Texas case was specifically rejected by the Bruen court as an “outlier” along with the few other reconstruction and western examples and late 19th century examples of short lived bans on open carry.

I’m not against concealed carry. Sometimes for some people in some circumstances it isn’t a bad idea. It is the utter corruption of a tyrannical state sitting in judgement over the exercise of an inalienable, human right, to which I object most strongly. If I have anything to say about this, it will not stand.

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by TruOil

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.

I'm not trying to argue with you Counselor - really I'm not - but are you REALLY trying to argue that Texans haven't been able to bear arms outside the home? Are you familiar with their laws that say their cars are an extension of their home??

Point being I think you'd be hard pressed to find many Texans that don't do just about what they want when it comes to guns.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by mcbair

Sometimes for some people in some circumstances it isn’t a bad idea. It is the utter corruption of a tyrannical state sitting in judgement over the exercise of an inalienable, human right, to which I object most strongly. If I have anything to say about this, it will not stand.

So let me repeat the last question I asked you, which I assume the judge will ask you as well: Do you think that post-release felons should be allowed to bear arms as a matter of right? Limiting that question to those convicted of violent felonies, do you think that violent offenders should be given free reign to keep and bear firearms? From what I have seen so far, I don't think the Supreme Court is willing to go that far. Is the risk of recidivism high enough to warrant life time bans, either generally or on a case by case basis? What about violent schizophrenics?

[GetMeCoffee]

Originally Posted by TruOil

... Do you believe that felons shold be allowed to carry firearms without restriction? What about adjudicated paranoid schizophrenics?

As a separate point, some sensitive places restrictions go back a long way. ...

I perhaps should have included these in my earlier post. When I chose the term "unencumbered" I meant it to refer to the right to bear as laid out by the NYSRPA/Bruen majority. To paraphrase, no GC, no GMC, no discretion, but subject to restrictions rooted in applicable history (e.g. felons, short list of sensitive places, etc.)

But that's all beside the point I was trying to make. Since CA currently forbids open carry, and CCW is encumbered, then it would seem that the judge's only choice is to find in mcbair's favor. The only other way out would be if CA radically changes it's CCW laws so that the judge can say that CCW satisfies the Bruen requirements and therefore to OC ban can stay.

Again, I realize that the outcome is likely to be less straightforward and will use delays, byzantine processes and word games to avoid the logical outcome.

[mcbair]

True Oil,
No we are not asking for felons, mentally deranged, domestic abusers or anyone else with federal or state prohibitors to be “allowed” to carry. We are not targeting sensitive places either, at least not yet. We did not include riffles in the complaint in order to keep our complaint as narrow as possible. We have never alleged that the unqualified command of the Second Amendment includes criminals. Those are fights for someone else, some other day. Throughout the proceeding the State’s attorney has tried again and again to conflate the issue that it would seem we want felons to carry. We have rebuffed this lie in open court and it is in the transcript. The Judge did ask whether we want “just anyone, violent felons, or those who refuse to attend a training class, to openly carry.” Her words not mine. An odd worry mixing violent felons with people who refuse training but hey. My attorney answered,” No your honor, law abiding citizens, have a right to openly carry a loaded weapon.” “ There are federal and state laws which already criminalize people who are prevented from owning a firearm, from carrying a firearm.” Judge Muller then asked state’s attorney whether he agreed with us. He lied of course, and responded, “ No your honor anyone could carry a gun.” A few minutes later he modified his statement when questioned by the judge to reflect a more truthful response that there were already Penal Codes for felon in possession, domestic abuse, restraining orders, and prohibitions on those adjudicated mentally defective. A state that is willing to lie to deny Liberty certainly should not, and according to the United States Constitution, and the California Constitution is prohibited from passing judgement upon, ( states answer to our complaint), “who may carry in the streets and towns of California.”
We have a Right! Rights are not permissions.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by mcbair

True Oil,
No we are not asking for felons, mentally deranged, domestic abusers or anyone else with federal or state prohibitors to be “allowed” to carry. We are not targeting sensitive places either, at least not yet. We did not include riffles in the complaint in order to keep our complaint as narrow as possible. We have never alleged that the unqualified command of the Second Amendment includes criminals. Those are fights for someone else, some other day. Throughout the proceeding the State’s attorney has tried again and again to conflate the issue that it would seem we want felons to carry. We have rebuffed this lie in open court and it is in the transcript. The Judge did ask whether we want “just anyone, violent felons, or those who refuse to attend a training class, to openly carry.” Her words not mine. An odd worry mixing violent felons with people who refuse training but hey. My attorney answered,” No your honor, law abiding citizens, have a right to openly carry a loaded weapon.” “ There are federal and state laws which already criminalize people who are prevented from owning a firearm, from carrying a firearm.” Judge Muller then asked state’s attorney whether he agreed with us. He lied of course, and responded, “ No your honor anyone could carry a gun.” A few minutes later he modified his statement when questioned by the judge to reflect a more truthful response that there were already Penal Codes for felon in possession, domestic abuse, restraining orders, and prohibitions on those adjudicated mentally defective. A state that is willing to lie to deny Liberty certainly should not, and according to the United States Constitution, and the California Constitution is prohibited from passing judgement upon, ( states answer to our complaint), “who may carry in the streets and towns of California.”
We have a Right! Rights are not permissions.

When the judge asked whether you want “just anyone, violent felons, or those who refuse to attend a training class, to openly carry?” Your attorney should have responded that "my client does not have standing to argue those claims." So those questions are not before the court!

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

When the judge asked whether you want “just anyone, violent felons, or those who refuse to attend a training class, to openly carry?” Your attorney should have responded that "my client does not have standing to argue those claims." So those questions are not before the court!

What difference does it make ? That's not part of a second amendment analysis.

[Drivedabizness]

The proper response would have been "Your Honor, I am unaware of any enumerated right where the People's servants can condition exercise of the right based on being willing to subject themselves to things like training. We don't condition voting on training, nor the right to counsel, or to assemble, nor protection from takings. In fact, your Honor, the People are PRESUMED to be capable of exercising ALL of their rights". This, in fact, cuts to the very core of our case.

[mcbair]

Friends, Yep perhaps all the above could have been said. No matter though, judge of course denied our objection to her schedule. This judge is a Democrat party operative and does a better job for California’s agenda than does the DOJ.
We will move for summary judgement just to get this out of her court. I never expected Justice here. But no politics today! Happy Thanksgiving to all of you and may all of Gods Blessings be with you and your families. May he lead our nation back to its beginnings in Liberty!

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

What difference does it make ? That's not part of a second amendment analysis.

Where is your sense of humor? I was merely suggesting a way to tell the judge that her questions had nothing to do with the case before her without being too insulting. On the other hand I think that I was outdone by Drivedabizness.

[mcbair]

I picked up on it, but could not concede a joke well put to a Marine!
Army Air Corps…the one true Air Force!! Happy thanksgiving!

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by mcbair

I picked up on it, but could not concede a joke well put to a Marine!
Army Air Corps…the one true Air Force!! Happy thanksgiving!

The point was how to tell the Judge that she is supposed to be neutral and detached and not an advocate for the state in such a way as to not be too insulting or at least be able to defend your comment as not contemptable, despite the biased nature of her questions. Drivedabizness also had a good suggestion. If it comes up again you could point out that open carry without a permit is the norm and the law in 32 of the 50 states. Apparently, those states do not share the court's concerns or find them to be overblown. Those 32 states are: Alaska, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Delaware, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. If those states that are permitless open carry but allow local restrictions are included the number increases to 37 states and Oregon, Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri and Pennsylvania have to be added to the list where open carry without a permit is the rule. Furthermore, there are 25 states, including Missouri, that allow the carrying of concealed handguns without a permit or license. The bottom line is that open carry without a permit was clearly the law at the time of the founding and is clearly the law today in most states.
Happy thanksgiving and good luck.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

Where is your sense of humor? I was merely suggesting a way to tell the judge that her questions had nothing to do with the case before her without being too insulting. On the other hand I think that I was outdone by Drivedabizness.

I think the questions was totally legitimate under the prior two step process. But the humor is/was lost on me. Drivedabizness put it well tho.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I think the questions was totally legitimate under the prior two step process. But the humor is/was lost on me. Drivedabizness put it well tho.

I did not say that your question was not legitimate. You were being serious while I was not, although I think that my point has validity in that the judge was going beyond the case in front of her. As I later responded to mcbair, my point was merely a suggestion of how his attorney could have told the judge that she is supposed to be neutral and detached and not an advocate for the state in such a way as to not be too insulting or at least being able to defend the comment as not contemptable, given the biased nature of her questions and their irrelevancy to the issues before her. If you cannot see the humor of sticking it to a biased judge in a way that avoids contempt, what can I say? Let me suggest that Drivedabizness was doing the same thing with his comment about her lack of training question. In my mind his comments essential would tell the judge that her training question demonstrated a lack of understanding of constitutional rights that made her unfit to be a judge. In other words a FU to the judge without risking contempt.

[Drivedabizness]

I remember Counselor Gura telling Justice Sotomayor (words to this effect) that action by a legislative or judicial body that was unconstitutional, even if there was a "process", did not bootstrap constitutionality to it. I appreciate the kind words - I believe we have to be a lot more vocal in telling judges, even recalcitrant judges (and other "public servants") that our issues aren't even close as a matter of law. They weren't close BEFORE Bruen. (SCOTUS merely clarified that for everyone).

[mcbair]

We accused the Judge of abuse of judicial power and abuse of discretion in giving the state a year for discovery that they did not ask for and that they claimed in their filing that they did not need. Her answer……well that’s my ruling, and you are free to object. Result of the objection? Her ruling stands. You think you have rights in California? Try exercising one. We will fight on, and we will win!

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by mcbair

Friends, Yep perhaps all the above could have been said. No matter though, judge of course denied our objection to her schedule. This judge is a Democrat party operative and does a better job for California’s agenda than does the DOJ.
We will move for summary judgement just to get this out of her court. I never expected Justice here. But no politics today! Happy Thanksgiving to all of you and may all of Gods Blessings be with you and your families. May he lead our nation back to its beginnings in Liberty!

The same court will hear the summary judgment motion. And there is no timeline for her to rule upon it. I am following a case in which the defendants filed a msj in the Eastern District in April 2020 that has yet to be ruled upon. The same kind of pocket vetos happened in a number of carry cases in both the district and circuit courts in this state--long delays in issuing decisions.

[mcbair]

TruOil, I agree. Judges steal our Liberty every day. I have been in this judges court many time as a drug interdiction officer and two civil actions for title 42 theft of Liberty cases. She never intends to rule on this case. All we can do is our best. The state has painted itself into a corner in their zeal to ban all Second Amendment exercises. We can win if we can somehow get this in front of an intellectually honest judge, if there is such a thing. Funny, how people think everyone has to tell the truth in court. Usually the judge is the biggest liar in the room. Yes she will delay, but that is the next step.

[Paladin]

Anyone know the status of this Open Carry case? What’s its next step and approximately when?

[mcbair]

Judge Muller denied our motion for Preliminary Injunction. She lied in her minute order which is not unusual. Judge also denied our objection to granting the state another nine or ten months to “discover new history”. The state not only did not ask for more discovery, the state asked for summary judgement until the judge talked them out of doing so. We will appeal the motion for P.I. To the ninth circus, and then to the USSC. If an individuals conduct complies with the plain text of the second amendment the conduct is presumptively Constitutional. The Judge admits we are likely to win on the merits which is why she fully intends to see this case never reaches the merits phase at least not in her courtroom.
We will win this. It is open and shut. Concealed carry is not a right in the ninth circuit. See Peruta v San Diego. We know we have a Right because the Second Amendment says so and the right itself declares that it shall not be infringed. If concealed carry isn’t a right then open carry must be!

[mcbair]

Appeal of the P.I. Is due by January 7 th.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by mcbair

Judge Muller denied our motion for Preliminary Injunction. She lied in her minute order which is not unusual. Judge also denied our objection to granting the state another nine or ten months to “discover new history”. The state not only did not ask for more discovery, the state asked for summary judgement until the judge talked them out of doing so. We will appeal the motion for P.I. To the ninth circus, and then to the USSC. If an individuals conduct complies with the plain text of the second amendment the conduct is presumptively Constitutional. The Judge admits we are likely to win on the merits which is why she fully intends to see this case never reaches the merits phase at least not in her courtroom.
We will win this. It is open and shut. Concealed carry is not a right in the ninth circuit. See Peruta v San Diego. We know we have a Right because the Second Amendment says so and the right itself declares that it shall not be infringed. If concealed carry isn’t a right then open carry must be!

THANK YOU!!!

Originally Posted by mcbair

Appeal of the P.I. Is due by January 7 th.

Merry Christmas!

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by mcbair

Judge Muller denied our motion for Preliminary Injunction. She lied in her minute order which is not unusual. Judge also denied our objection to granting the state another nine or ten months to “discover new history”. The state not only did not ask for more discovery, the state asked for summary judgement until the judge talked them out of doing so. We will appeal the motion for P.I. To the ninth circus, and then to the USSC. If an individuals conduct complies with the plain text of the second amendment the conduct is presumptively Constitutional. The Judge admits we are likely to win on the merits which is why she fully intends to see this case never reaches the merits phase at least not in her courtroom.
We will win this. It is open and shut. Concealed carry is not a right in the ninth circuit. See Peruta v San Diego. We know we have a Right because the Second Amendment says so and the right itself declares that it shall not be infringed. If concealed carry isn’t a right then open carry must be!

If this is your judge she is an Obama nominee…

https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caedne...l-judges/5020/

[mcbair]

Yes she is a Democrat Party operative. She was a Sacramento City Councilman.
Her and her husbands ranch is near Jerry Browns ranch. Obama appointee.
She has lied in court, and in her filings and orders. She is a better legal agent for California than Cal DOJ is. She will try the state’s case for them, making suggestions to their attorneys and ruling in favor of her own suggestions. In another case she admitted having back room conversations with the appellate court in a matter they had not been briefed upon. Then she acted illegally on their suggestions. The only Federal judge I’ve ever heard of that convened a three judge panel, then rescinded her own order three days later and dismissed for lack of standing. She claims the balance of the publics interests means the interests of the government, not the interest of the people. The interest of the people is always in favor of the Bill of Rights. As the Bruen Court found the Second Amendment IS the result of the balance of the interest of the people for Liberty against the interest of the government to take it from us!

[curtisfong]

literally worst case forum shopping fail.

the face of your enemy, and real white privilege; far worse than any activist or legislator, she wields real, unchecked, unbalanced, unilateral power. She cannot be defeated; there is no check or balance that restricts anything she does. The system will close ranks around her if attacked, and will squash any dissent with prejudice (literally).



You're totally boned.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by CDMichel

Bringing this case was NOT WISE in the first place. It appears to have been brought for the wrong reasons (hoping to get to go to SCOTUS? Self-promotion?), at the wrong time, and with insufficient resources and skills.

Not to mention the wrong district, which you did not mention.

The single determining factor: proper forum shopping. How many more foolish plaintiffs do we need to watch flounder before everyone learns their lesson?

Every single plaintiff should already know (by heart) which districts have the lowest proportion of judges hostile to the right. If they do not, they have no business bringing a lawsuit.

[mcbair]

The keyboard commandos are out in force I see. Just curious….what have you personally done to protect your Liberty besides shoot other conservatives in the foot, for doing something to preserve our own? Chuck Michel doesn’t know me, has never spoken to me and has no insight into my reasons or methods for bringing this suit. Neither do you. I have been in front of Judge Muller many times. We know exactly what she is and what she is not. She denied the P.I. As expected. She has simply given us the opportunity to move to appeal far sooner than if we had waited for the closing of the merits phase of the case. Even Judge Muller has admitted that we are very likely to prevail on our Second Amendment cause of action….she just can’t see her liberal self granting the P.I. Chuck’s organization believes you and all the rest of us should be limited to concealed carry with government permission. The Ninth Circuit has ruled against concealed carry as a Right guaranteed und the Second Amendment every single time regardless of the district in which the action was brought. Concealed carry is not a right! See Peruta v San Diego en banc. Further, if there is a right guaranteed under the Second Amendment it must be open carry, see Peruta v San Diego. The Sacramento Superior Court in People v Diaz agrees that open carry is the right protected under the Second Amendment. Even Judge Muller agrees we are very likely to succeed on the merits of our Second Amendment cause of action. I don’t know Chuck’s Michel, don’t know what motivates him and while I respect some of his work, I disagree with him and his organization in this instance. I believe that we the people of California have the unalienable Right to defense of self, family, community, state and nation, without government permission using whatever bearable weapon we choose, borne in whatever manner that fits the situation. Californians had the Second Amendment Right to openly carry loaded weapons anywhere in this state until for over 150 years until the Black Panthers pissed off the California Legislature in 1968. Your masters decided to teach the masses a lesson and stripped everyone of the Right to carry, unless you can bribe or beg a Sheriff for permission. I will not allow this to stand if there is anything I can do about it. The NYSRPA court set the bar for Second Amendment jurisprudence. The Second Amendment is not a second class right. If the individuals conduct complies with the plain text of the amendment that conduct is presumptively Constitutional. The inferior courts still insist on using the Winters test instead of the Bruen test for granting Second Amendment Injunctions. That is our opportunity to move this along Also you may want to consider that there are other conservative judges in the circuit and it is not always logistically or procedurally possible to draw judge Benitez. I don’t know you or what your motives are in “my” case, but I am pretty sure you are not a contributor or supporter. I welcome constructive discourse, but have no time for the circular firing squad.
I am a combat veteran, a former peace officer engaged in cartel and gang drug interdiction, and a lover of the Bill of Rights for which my father and forefathers fought and died. I aim to win this case. I am not afraid of Judge Muller, or anyone else for that matter. God Bless you, and I sincerely hope you find your way. As for me, I choose Liberty no matter who or where I must fight to get it.

[wchutt]

Will the PI request be posted?

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by mcbair

The keyboard commandos are out in force I see. Just curious….what have you personally done to protect your Liberty besides shoot other conservatives in the foot, for doing something to preserve our own? Chuck Michel doesn’t know me, has never spoken to me and has no insight into my reasons or methods for bringing this suit. Neither do you. I have been in front of Judge Muller many times. We know exactly what she is and what she is not. She denied the P.I. As expected. She has simply given us the opportunity to move to appeal far sooner than if we had waited for the closing of the merits phase of the case. Even Judge Muller has admitted that we are very likely to prevail on our Second Amendment cause of action….she just can’t see her liberal self granting the P.I. Chuck’s organization believes you and all the rest of us should be limited to concealed carry with government permission. The Ninth Circuit has ruled against concealed carry as a Right guaranteed und the Second Amendment every single time regardless of the district in which the action was brought. Concealed carry is not a right! See Peruta v San Diego en banc. Further, if there is a right guaranteed under the Second Amendment it must be open carry, see Peruta v San Diego. The Sacramento Superior Court in People v Diaz agrees that open carry is the right protected under the Second Amendment. Even Judge Muller agrees we are very likely to succeed on the merits of our Second Amendment cause of action. I don’t know Chuck’s Michel, don’t know what motivates him and while I respect some of his work, I disagree with him and his organization in this instance. I believe that we the people of California have the unalienable Right to defense of self, family, community, state and nation, without government permission using whatever bearable weapon we choose, borne in whatever manner that fits the situation. Californians had the Second Amendment Right to openly carry loaded weapons anywhere in this state until for over 150 years until the Black Panthers pissed off the California Legislature in 1968. Your masters decided to teach the masses a lesson and stripped everyone of the Right to carry, unless you can bribe or beg a Sheriff for permission. I will not allow this to stand if there is anything I can do about it. The NYSRPA court set the bar for Second Amendment jurisprudence. The Second Amendment is not a second class right. If the individuals conduct complies with the plain text of the amendment that conduct is presumptively Constitutional. The inferior courts still insist on using the Winters test instead of the Bruen test for granting Second Amendment Injunctions. That is our opportunity to move this along Also you may want to consider that there are other conservative judges in the circuit and it is not always logistically or procedurally possible to draw judge Benitez. I don’t know you or what your motives are in “my” case, but I am pretty sure you are not a contributor or supporter. I welcome constructive discourse, but have no time for the circular firing squad.
I am a combat veteran, a former peace officer engaged in cartel and gang drug interdiction, and a lover of the Bill of Rights for which my father and forefathers fought and died. I aim to win this case. I am not afraid of Judge Muller, or anyone else for that matter. God Bless you, and I sincerely hope you find your way. As for me, I choose Liberty no matter who or where I must fight to get it.

Well, key board commando's? Perhaps

You would surely benefit from keyboard commanding by learning how to use a key board and using the enter button so that your posts are actually readable. (its called paragraphing)

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by mcbair

Even Judge Muller has admitted that we are very likely to prevail on our Second Amendment cause of action

I hope so.

I am not afraid of Judge Muller.

I'll be honest. I'm terrified of Judges like Judge Muller.

[TruOil]

After Bruen, Peruta is no longer good law. Bruen holds, in essence, that applicants have a right to a CCW without a showing of good cause. That opinion is applicable to California and the Ninth Circuit, as demonstrated by the fact the state has dropped the good cause requirement from the application process. Moreover, as you are likely aware, the Ninth ALSO held that there is no right to bear arms outside the home AT ALL, open OR concealed, thus putting the kibosh on an open carry case. That case was reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court. To suggest otherwise is simply unsustainable. Instead, it is still an open question as to whether the state can mandate concealed carry and continue to ban open carry in urban areas, i.e., a basic flip of the laws two centuries ago banning concealed carry but allowing open carry. Of course, this is only an issue in urban areas, as the state already allows unlicensed carry, open or concealed, in unincorporated areas of the state such as wilderness areas.

[mcbair]

Read PC 26150, and 26155. Show good cause, and may issue are still part of the language. I saw the memo Bonta sent to “issuing agencies”. It is just what it says, a memo. Bonta cannot force District attorneys not to prosecute, nor can he compel any successor to comply with his memo. Bonta also suggested in his memo that a moral turpitude test just might be used to control the number of permits just as show good cause is used now. Three Sheriffs have been accused of taking political bribes in exchange for a CCW. Does that sound like a Right to you folks? For around 200 years that we can prove, it was not unlawful to openly carry a loaded weapon anywhere in California. Why is this so hard to accept? It has been illegal to open carry for around 10 years for unloaded handguns and since 1968 for loaded handguns. If you are hell bent on begging the government for permission to do that which is your Natural Right…..go ahead. No one is trying to stand in the way.
Hey commando, here is your paragraph…..As for me, I want the Liberty to do that which is my Right. Rights do not require permission. Permissions are not rights.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by mcbair

Read PC 26150, and 26155. Show good cause, and may issue are still part of the language. I saw the memo Bonta sent to “issuing agencies”. It is just what it says, a memo. Bonta cannot force District attorneys not to prosecute, nor can he compel any successor to comply with his memo. Bonta also suggested in his memo that a moral turpitude test just might be used to control the number of permits just as show good cause is used now. Three Sheriffs have been accused of taking political bribes in exchange for a CCW. Does that sound like a Right to you folks? For around 200 years that we can prove, it was not unlawful to openly carry a loaded weapon anywhere in California. Why is this so hard to accept? It has been illegal to open carry for around 10 years for unloaded handguns and since 1968 for loaded handguns. If you are hell bent on begging the government for permission to do that which is your Natural Right…..go ahead. No one is trying to stand in the way.
Hey commando, here is your paragraph…..As for me, I want the Liberty to do that which is my Right. Rights do not require permission. Permissions are not rights.

You’re gonna lose and you’re gonna push back open carry rights into another court with bad precedence that your case will leave behind.

Just the fact that you have difficulties expressing yourself in a public forum shows that in a court of law, you may be your own worst enemy.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by mcbair

Read PC 26150, and 26155. Show good cause, and may issue are still part of the language. I saw the memo Bonta sent to “issuing agencies”. It is just what it says, a memo. Bonta cannot force District attorneys not to prosecute, nor can he compel any successor to comply with his memo. Bonta also suggested in his memo that a moral turpitude test just might be used to control the number of permits just as show good cause is used now. Three Sheriffs have been accused of taking political bribes in exchange for a CCW. Does that sound like a Right to you folks? For around 200 years that we can prove, it was not unlawful to openly carry a loaded weapon anywhere in California. Why is this so hard to accept? It has been illegal to open carry for around 10 years for unloaded handguns and since 1968 for loaded handguns. If you are hell bent on begging the government for permission to do that which is your Natural Right…..go ahead. No one is trying to stand in the way.
Hey commando, here is your paragraph…..As for me, I want the Liberty to do that which is my Right. Rights do not require permission. Permissions are not rights.

I get what you're saying but these things can't be fixed overnight unfortunately.
If a sheriff refuses to issue an otherwise clean applicant, they will get hauled into Federal court. They don't want that. If they try to deny someone based on good moral character for something not otherwise illegal, they'll get sued.

And as far as requiring a license that's just where we're at right now. 2 of the 6 justices who ruled for Bruen specifically said shall issue licensing was OK. I don't think them ruling for constitutional carry right now is possible.

[mcbair]

Agreed, these things can’t be fixed overnight. Let’s ask ourselves a question.
Is it acceptable for a State Legislature, a single state agent (with no appeal process), or a state agency to knowingly pass, enforce, or invent Unconstitutional laws, regulations, or interpretations of these things?
During the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights it was considered Constitutional and lawful to carry any firearm required, in any manner chosen by the individual, any where one chose to carry, for any LAWFUL purpose. Self defense was considered an individual, pre- governmental, God given right. Self defense was considered the most important of the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.
I was not wired to accept tyranny, even though it may be time consuming to defend my Right against government Wrongs.
The USSC would have to set aside its own rulings in NYSRPA to disagree with the causes of action in this case.
The Second Amendment is not a second class right.
If the individuals conduct is consistent with the plain text of the amendment, it is presumptively Constitutional. The Bruin test!
The Second Amendment protects the right of the individual to carry weapons outside the home.
The government may not use interest balancing to justify denial of Second Amendment guarantees because the Amendment itself is the very product of the balance of the public’s Liberty verses the governments desire to take that Liberty.
During the founding era there is no history of any widely held or generally accepted regulation or prohibition of the open carry or personal weapons for the purpose of self defense outside the home.
When history after the founding era conflicts with the plain text, the text wins out.
I could go on, and on, and on, but you should get the point.
The NYSRPA case was a concealed carry case, that is true, however the USSC also set the bar for all subsequent 2A litigation with the Bruin test and the other stuff I outlined and more! The worst offenders, New York, California among them thumb their nose at the Court, thumb their nose at the people and thumb their nose at Liberty!
I am not ok with this and will do my best to defend my Liberty!

[Paladin]

From a mass email from Charles Nichols:

I have some good Open Carry news! Yesterday, Mark Baird filed his notice of appeal wherein he challenges the denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction. The notice states:

"PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the plaintiffs, MARK BAIRD and RICHARD GALLARDO, hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the annexed Order of the Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller entered by the Clerk of the Court on December 8, 2022 and each and every part thereof that denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, and sua sponte dismissed the plaintiffs’ as applied challenge, and each and every part thereof that is contrary to and/or prejudiced the plaintiffs’ rights, claims, and interests."

Today, January 4, 2023, the district court clerk "processed" the notice of appeal to the court of appeals (notices of appeal are required to be filed in the district court). …

Now we wait for the court of appeals to assign a number to the appeal and set a briefing schedule.

[ritter]

Why do I feel that appeal will fall on deaf ears?

[wchutt]

Any way to read the appeal?

[mcbair]

Response to Order to Show Cause filed.