Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #801  
Old 04-13-2023, 8:37 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 4,672
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
According to my IA, CCW's can be unilaterally revoked. There is no right to hearing our appeal. Of course, these are the same folks who claim carry is a privilege.
OK, but have they done so?
Reply With Quote
  #802  
Old 04-13-2023, 9:26 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
I'm not saying it's an allowable infringement, but SCOTUS isn't going to overturn a good cause requirement AND the permit requirement when they weren't asked to in the first place. The attorneys felt that a step-by-step approach instead of an all out 2A grievance case would garner the necessary votes to win.
No the permit cannot be terminated w/o notice/due process. I think that'll be the case in even the most anti-gun states.
If the case were simply about a privilege based upon objective criteria then SCOTUS wouldn't be going into 2A text history and tradition. All that would be required is a 14A equal protection analysis case closed, similar to how that guy Billy Jack used to get clients CCWs back in the day. I'll point out SCOTUS ruled the right belongs to all the people, not just some meeting the issuing authority's definition of need.
Is that substantive and procedural due process?
Reply With Quote
  #803  
Old 04-13-2023, 11:18 AM
rplaw's Avatar
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,706
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
Is that substantive and procedural due process?
It would a violation of due process be IF you had a vested interest of a civil / constitutional right.

The fact that no IA will give prior notice of revocation with the opportunity to be heard prior to that revocation should tell you whether the State believes you have that vested interest or not.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far.

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

My Utubery
Reply With Quote
  #804  
Old 04-13-2023, 12:14 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Nevada City, CA
Posts: 2,588
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
OK, but have they done so?
Umm, NO. They haven't issued it to me, yet.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #805  
Old 04-13-2023, 2:29 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,848
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
So, what happens if someone is arrested for OC in California after Bruen?

If LEO arrest and the state prosecutes the defense under Bruen is that States cannot ban the public carry of arms and cannot ban OC even if they allow CC. (see generally Bruen at 41-51)

The result is that the trial court has no option except to dismiss because the SCOTUS opinion supersedes any California precedent to the contrary.


So, is Bruen the law of the land and applicable in California or not? The "technical" aspect that it hasn't been litigated here is irrelevant because the end result is that OC cannot be banned under the Constitution. Additionally, the fact that there is currently no permit system available for most of California already in place for bearing arms openly must mean that the legislature believes that no permit should be required for OC in most of California. This defeats the "permit required" allegation.


So, is OC legal here as it stands right now or not?
Let's find out. You go first. {There actually is a county oy permit system for open carry but no one issues them.]
Reply With Quote
  #806  
Old 04-13-2023, 2:33 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
It would a violation of due process be IF you had a vested interest of a civil / constitutional right.

The fact that no IA will give prior notice of revocation with the opportunity to be heard prior to that revocation should tell you whether the State believes you have that vested interest or not.
My question was Socratic. Clearly a subtantive denial of a Constitutional right. Play with this if you haven't already. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...-canon#fn9art3
Reply With Quote
  #807  
Old 04-13-2023, 2:39 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
So, what happens if someone is arrested for OC in California after Bruen?

If LEO arrest and the state prosecutes the defense under Bruen is that States cannot ban the public carry of arms and cannot ban OC even if they allow CC. (see generally Bruen at 41-51)

The result is that the trial court has no option except to dismiss because the SCOTUS opinion supersedes any California precedent to the contrary.


So, is Bruen the law of the land and applicable in California or not? The "technical" aspect that it hasn't been litigated here is irrelevant because the end result is that OC cannot be banned under the Constitution. Additionally, the fact that there is currently no permit system available for most of California already in place for bearing arms openly must mean that the legislature believes that no permit should be required for OC in most of California. This defeats the "permit required" allegation.


So, is OC legal here as it stands right now or not?
Define "legal." The more difficult question is if the arresting officer and others in the prosecutorial chain have qualified immunity. Do far I don't know that a court has ruled that any Calfornia code section is void ala Bruen.
Reply With Quote
  #808  
Old 04-13-2023, 2:40 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,848
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
My question was Socratic. Clearly a subtantive denial of a Constitutional right. Play with this if you haven't already. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...-canon#fn9art3
Plus there is typically a requirement that there be cause and a hearing for revoking a license, such as a business license, liquor license, driver's license, etc. A CCW should be treated no differently irrespective of the constitutional issue.
Reply With Quote
  #809  
Old 04-13-2023, 2:48 PM
guntrust's Avatar
guntrust guntrust is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Morro Bay, CA
Posts: 757
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
Define "legal." The more difficult question is if the arresting officer and others in the prosecutorial chain have qualified immunity.
I don't think they do under the cases, even if SCOTUS keeps QI around (probably a majority of justices hate it).

Furthermore, the associated municipality likely faces Monell liability.

AG opinion notwithstanding. Bonta's letter even warned the IA's to get their own counsel, and not to take his letter as legal advice.
__________________
David R Duringer JD LL.M (Tax), CA/WA/TX atty, @guntrust on social nets.
Protective Law Corporation *Estate Planning for Gun Owners* (zoom or office)
Become an affiliated attorney/advisor: http://guncounsel.com
CRPA Mag Must Retract Erroneous Bulletin Slamming Gun Trusts
Radio ads: http://Protect.FM
FREE training: http://guntrust.org
FREE design meeting: http://Protect.LIFE
Reply With Quote
  #810  
Old 04-13-2023, 4:45 PM
40calfunk's Avatar
40calfunk 40calfunk is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: San Joaquin County
Posts: 90
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Ca v. Diaz; Order Sustaining Demurrer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxa1 View Post
Would someone provide a link to the judge's opinion in this case?
Forgot where I downloaded this from, but here's Judge White's order on the Demurrer.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #811  
Old 04-13-2023, 5:18 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 40calfunk View Post
Forgot where I downloaded this from, but here's Judge White's order on the Demurrer.
SWEET!
Reply With Quote
  #812  
Old 04-13-2023, 8:34 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Nevada City, CA
Posts: 2,588
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Let's find out. You go first. {There actually is a county oy permit system for open carry but no one issues them.]
At my recent CCW application/Livescan interview I asked about this, as I live in one of those under 200k pop Counties.

The Deputy said - "why would you want to open carry? You're about to get a CCW and even if you don't have one you can CCW while hunting and fishing. No, we don't issue open carry permits."

In case you were wondering.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #813  
Old 04-14-2023, 12:41 AM
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Beyond the reach...
Posts: 4,228
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 40calfunk View Post
Forgot where I downloaded this from, but here's Judge White's order on the Demurrer.
That is a great read. The judge, despite knowing the ramifications of his decision, applied the law objectively. No twisting, contortions, or justifications necessary.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #814  
Old 04-14-2023, 2:40 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 3,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
It would a violation of due process be IF you had a vested interest of a civil / constitutional right.

The fact that no IA will give prior notice of revocation with the opportunity to be heard prior to that revocation should tell you whether the State believes you have that vested interest or not.
That's because that portion of the law was created with a may-issue license in mind, and it hasn't been challenged post-Bruen. I agree it should be changed, but it may require an instance where someone loses their CCW on flimsy grounds (parking tickets or some non-violent misdemeanor,exc.).

Also, doesn't CA at least notify the permit holder that their license is being revoked?
Reply With Quote
  #815  
Old 04-16-2023, 12:36 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
That's because that portion of the law was created with a may-issue license in mind, and it hasn't been challenged post-Bruen. I agree it should be changed, but it may require an instance where someone loses their CCW on flimsy grounds (parking tickets or some non-violent misdemeanor,exc.).

Also, doesn't CA at least notify the permit holder that their license is being revoked?
Pc 26195(b)(3) If the local licensing authority revokes the license, the Department of Justice shall be notified of the revocation pursuant to Section 26225. The licensee shall also be immediately notified of the revocation in writing.
Reply With Quote
  #816  
Old 06-01-2023, 8:50 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,285
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Reply With Quote
  #817  
Old 06-02-2023, 5:33 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,719
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The last thing filed was status reports, but it's not super interesting,

Quote:
STATUS REPORT Plaintiff's Response to Discovery Order ECF 191, page 5, part 11 filed by Plaintiff Charles Nichols. (Nichols, Charles) (Entered: 03/20/2023)
https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...8404.194.0.pdf

Quote:
STATUS REPORT Attorney General's Discovery Status Report filed by Defendant Xavier Becerra. (Haddad, Lara) (Entered: 03/20/2023)
https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...8404.195.0.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #818  
Old 06-04-2023, 2:18 AM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 739
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

How does one even come to the conclusion that crystal meth and firearms are one in the same. Pretty sure a preschool child could tell the difference between a baggy of crystal meth and a firearm. I will go one step further explain to me how firing a firearm alters ones mental condition like crystal meth does when ingested. There are laws protecting the possession of firearms and none for the possession of crystal meth. There fore not any comparison what so eveq.
Reply With Quote
  #819  
Old 06-05-2023, 2:19 PM
rational_behavior rational_behavior is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 152
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I went to https://michellawyers.com/nichols-v-harris/ and I was astounded that this case has been dragging on for 12 years. Short of reading 12 years of filings and 21 pages of posts, Can somebody give the synopsis of this case and its evolution? What is the connection to Peruta?
Reply With Quote
  #820  
Old 06-06-2023, 7:51 AM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Nevada City, CA
Posts: 2,588
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Peruta was about discretionary licensing for concealed carry - especially given open carry is illegal. The 9CA "2A 2-stepped" it - sidestepping the question of whether there is a right to SOME manner of carry outside the home - which was the specific question litigated - and upholding May Issue under rational basis (dressed up as intermediate scrutiny)

Nichols' case (rightly or wrongly) has always been about the right to open carry outside the home. He writes some good stuff (and some stuff that drives a lot of people here, including and maybe especially, the lawyers) nuts.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools

Last edited by Drivedabizness; 06-06-2023 at 12:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #821  
Old 06-06-2023, 10:52 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What I don't get is the perceived animosity between the open carry and concealed carry advocates, which I believe stems from a belief that a state can get away with allowing one of the two and still comply with the right to bear.

I can't go along with that kind of thinking. Even if one is allowed, the denial of the other is still an infringement. I suppose that kind of thinking goes along with dong the two step, as arguably the infringement is less as long as one form of carry is allowed.
Reply With Quote
  #822  
Old 06-06-2023, 10:59 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 4,672
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
What I don't get is the perceived animosity between the open carry and concealed carry advocates, which I believe stems from a belief that a state can get away with allowing one of the two and still comply with the right to bear.

I can't go along with that kind of thinking. Even if one is allowed, the denial of the other is still an infringement. I suppose that kind of thinking goes along with dong the two step, as arguably the infringement is less as long as one form of carry is allowed.
I agree. Infringement is infringement no matter how you try to slice it.
Reply With Quote
  #823  
Old 06-06-2023, 2:30 PM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,492
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Concealed carry activists most likely live in highly politically-unfavorable areas, urban and dominated by Democrats, where open carry is not socially permissible, even if legal.

Open carrying in these places risks getting the police called by 5 hysterical gun banners every hour. Dealing with a police response while open carrying is a high-risk situation.

I understand their concern. To be clear, I believe both should be legal.

Last edited by AlmostHeaven; 06-06-2023 at 6:00 PM.. Reason: Clarified a point
Reply With Quote
  #824  
Old 06-06-2023, 5:21 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Nevada City, CA
Posts: 2,588
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Lock up/fine enough "offended" reporters and it will stop.

The busy body Karens lack courage
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #825  
Old 07-21-2023, 2:33 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,719
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
ORDER from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 168 filed by Charles Nichols. CCA # 14-55873. Charles Nicholss motion for an extension of time in which to file a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, filed September 14, 2022, is hereby GRANTED. The petition for rehearing shall be filed with the court on or before August 18, 2023. GRANTED. (car) (Entered: 07/21/2023)
I guess he's requesting re-hearing and needs more time.
Reply With Quote
  #826  
Old 07-22-2023, 7:46 AM
rplaw's Avatar
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,706
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
I guess he's requesting re-hearing and needs more time.
Fairly standard, almost no one files a petition without requesting an extension of time. The court routinely grants ONE extension without requiring cause.

In this case Mr. Nichols probably has to go back and dig through his mountain of case paperwork to see what's been ordered and argued just to refresh his own memories as well as create some sort of statement of the case as it exists today before he can begin to present his new petition. A daunting task.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far.

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

My Utubery
Reply With Quote
  #827  
Old 07-22-2023, 7:52 AM
rplaw's Avatar
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,706
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven View Post
Concealed carry activists most likely live in highly politically-unfavorable areas, urban and dominated by Democrats, where open carry is not socially permissible, even if legal.

Open carrying in these places risks getting the police called by 5 hysterical gun banners every hour. Dealing with a police response while open carrying is a high-risk situation.

I understand their concern. To be clear, I believe both should be legal.
One should not have to "deal with police" merely for carrying arms. Any hysterical Karens can be told by dispatch that it's not illegal and that officers will NOT be responding to their call.

The police should consider doing a PSA about it and make sure that the public understands that open carry isn't unlawful and that 911 calls are a waste of resources which could also result in the caller being arrested.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far.

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

My Utubery
Reply With Quote
  #828  
Old 07-22-2023, 10:26 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 9,109
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
One should not have to "deal with police" merely for carrying arms. Any hysterical Karens can be told by dispatch that it's not illegal and that officers will NOT be responding to their call.

The police should consider doing a PSA about it and make sure that the public understands that open carry isn't unlawful and that 911 calls are a waste of resources which could also result in the caller being arrested.
I gotta salute the reasoning and analysis contained in this posting. Can't argue with the logic expressed here.

Now let's get back to the real world. What do you think is gonna happen when when the police give the "Karen Admonishment" and the involved subject then does a mass shooting? I agree that this scenario has a "one in ten million" chance of occurring, but when the U.S population is over 330 million, it's gonna happen.

When I was a very new patrol deputy, we had a person call the station to report that he was being threatened by his roommate. It was a very busy day in the field, calls were backed up, and the desk deputy assessed that this was not a very meritorious call. He gave what would today be termed the "Karen Admonishment." The caller became angered that no unit would be responding to his call. He asked "what if he comes after me with a gun." The deputy replied that if that occurred, that we would send a unit and ended the call. Remember that all of the conversation is recorded. The roommate then came back with a gun and shot the caller, who then died at the scene. Deputies then responded. What do you think happened after the recordings were reviewed?
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #829  
Old 07-22-2023, 10:28 AM
JiuJitsu's Avatar
JiuJitsu JiuJitsu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 345
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So what does this latest petition for re-hearing mean? This case is going back for a new hearing at the 9CA in light of Bruen? What?s the next step here?
Reply With Quote
  #830  
Old 07-22-2023, 10:00 PM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,492
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
One should not have to "deal with police" merely for carrying arms. Any hysterical Karens can be told by dispatch that it's not illegal and that officers will NOT be responding to their call.

The police should consider doing a PSA about it and make sure that the public understands that open carry isn't unlawful and that 911 calls are a waste of resources which could also result in the caller being arrested.
I agree completely with your principles and wish more Americans held them.

However, I must reiterate, in highly politically-unfavorable areas, urban and dominated by Democrats, where open carry is not socially permissible, even if legal, local government officials will never allow law enforcement to adopt a policy of ignoring such calls. Liberal activists would vote the city council, police chief, and district attorney out of office to ensure that officers do respond to every hysterical report made about someone visibly carrying a firearm.
Reply With Quote
  #831  
Old 07-23-2023, 7:34 AM
rplaw's Avatar
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,706
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
I gotta salute the reasoning and analysis contained in this posting. Can't argue with the logic expressed here.

Now let's get back to the real world. What do you think is gonna happen when when the police give the "Karen Admonishment" and the involved subject then does a mass shooting? I agree that this scenario has a "one in ten million" chance of occurring, but when the U.S population is over 330 million, it's gonna happen.

When I was a very new patrol deputy, we had a person call the station to report that he was being threatened by his roommate. It was a very busy day in the field, calls were backed up, and the desk deputy assessed that this was not a very meritorious call. He gave what would today be termed the "Karen Admonishment." The caller became angered that no unit would be responding to his call. He asked "what if he comes after me with a gun." The deputy replied that if that occurred, that we would send a unit and ended the call. Remember that all of the conversation is recorded. The roommate then came back with a gun and shot the caller, who then died at the scene. Deputies then responded. What do you think happened after the recordings were reviewed?


Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven View Post
I agree completely with your principles and wish more Americans held them.

However, I must reiterate, in highly politically-unfavorable areas, urban and dominated by Democrats, where open carry is not socially permissible, even if legal, local government officials will never allow law enforcement to adopt a policy of ignoring such calls. Liberal activists would vote the city council, police chief, and district attorney out of office to ensure that officers do respond to every hysterical report made about someone visibly carrying a firearm.

There is no obligation for the police to protect anyone. And, when you fabricate a basis to try to impose an obligation for the police to protect an individual at the expense of Constitutional Rights, your fabrication becomes nothing more than a blanket denial of Rights. Worse, when you then attempt to justify that denial of rights on the basis of someone keeping or not keeping their elected office, you reduce our God Given and Enumerated Constitutional Rights to less than the ability of some unnamed bureaucrat or hired government flunky to keep their paycheck.


Exercising my Rights is not illegal. If some Karen can't handle it, they need to be the one getting the admonishment not me. Nor should my Rights be curtailed merely because someone in office or government employ might be inconvenienced or lose their job. Even merely considering the possibility is repugnant to the concept of liberty.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far.

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

My Utubery
Reply With Quote
  #832  
Old 07-23-2023, 11:00 PM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,492
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
There is no obligation for the police to protect anyone. And, when you fabricate a basis to try to impose an obligation for the police to protect an individual at the expense of Constitutional Rights, your fabrication becomes nothing more than a blanket denial of Rights. Worse, when you then attempt to justify that denial of rights on the basis of someone keeping or not keeping their elected office, you reduce our God Given and Enumerated Constitutional Rights to less than the ability of some unnamed bureaucrat or hired government flunky to keep their paycheck.

Exercising my Rights is not illegal. If some Karen can't handle it, they need to be the one getting the admonishment not me. Nor should my Rights be curtailed merely because someone in office or government employ might be inconvenienced or lose their job. Even merely considering the possibility is repugnant to the concept of liberty.
To exclusively cite principles and logic ignores the reality on the ground in liberal areas.

I categorically support open carry and the right to exercise individual liberties without harassment from law enforcement. I merely stipulate that people who visibly display weapons in densely populated urban environments will cause panic and generate significant police responses. Therefore, I never open carry in suburban or urban environments, regardless of its legal status.
Reply With Quote
  #833  
Old 07-24-2023, 6:36 AM
rplaw's Avatar
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,706
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven View Post
To exclusively cite principles and logic ignores the reality on the ground in liberal areas.

I categorically support open carry and the right to exercise individual liberties without harassment from law enforcement. I merely stipulate that people who visibly display weapons in densely populated urban environments will cause panic and generate significant police responses. Therefore, I never open carry in suburban or urban environments, regardless of its legal status.
A liberal's silly hysterics do not overrule Constitutional Rights and the law. Putting a bunch of Karens together in one place doesn't change that one tiny bit.

Anyone who gets upset merely because someone carries a gun openly needs to be told in definite terms that if they don't shut up, they're going to be the ones arrested and prosecuted. Eventually even the dumbest rocks will get the message.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far.

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

My Utubery
Reply With Quote
  #834  
Old 07-24-2023, 6:36 AM
mcbair mcbair is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 148
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

P.C. 148.5 filing a false report. Misdemeanor up to 6 months in county jail or 1000 dollars base fine. I’m not arguing the open vs concealed carry tactically superior deal. We have rights or we don’t. A right unexercised for fear of causing a stir is a right lost. Urban Karens can always move to New York or Chicago where they will be safely shielded from all things worrisome. Yes, I would rather choose the method of carry that best suits the situation, but refuse to ask government permission or pay fees to exercise my pre-governmental rights.
If that means open carry, then that is what I will do! I’ll be horse whipped if offending some ninny socialist, changes my actions.
Reply With Quote
  #835  
Old 07-24-2023, 6:58 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 4,672
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbair View Post
P.C. 148.5 filing a false report. Misdemeanor up to 6 months in county jail or 1000 dollars base fine. I?m not arguing the open vs concealed carry tactically superior deal. We have rights or we don?t. A right unexercised for fear of causing a stir is a right lost. Urban Karens can always move to New York or Chicago where they will be safely shielded from all things worrisome. Yes, I would rather choose the method of carry that best suits the situation, but refuse to ask government permission or pay fees to exercise my pre-governmental rights.
If that means open carry, then that is what I will do! I?ll be horse whipped if offending some ninny socialist, changes my actions.
Offending libtards is what the 1st Amendment is for!
Reply With Quote
  #836  
Old 07-24-2023, 7:01 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 9,109
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
There is no obligation for the police to protect anyone. And, when you fabricate a basis to try to impose an obligation for the police to protect an individual at the expense of Constitutional Rights, your fabrication becomes nothing more than a blanket denial of Rights. Worse, when you then attempt to justify that denial of rights on the basis of someone keeping or not keeping their elected office, you reduce our God Given and Enumerated Constitutional Rights to less than the ability of some unnamed bureaucrat or hired government flunky to keep their paycheck.


Exercising my Rights is not illegal. If some Karen can't handle it, they need to be the one getting the admonishment not me. Nor should my Rights be curtailed merely because someone in office or government employ might be inconvenienced or lose their job. Even merely considering the possibility is repugnant to the concept of liberty.
That's all really groovy, but you dodged the question. To repeat:

"Now let's get back to the real world. What do you think is gonna happen when when the police give the "Karen Admonishment" and the involved subject then does a mass shooting?"
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #837  
Old 07-24-2023, 8:00 AM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,492
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbair View Post
I?m not arguing the open vs concealed carry tactically superior deal. We have rights or we don?t. A right unexercised for fear of causing a stir is a right lost. Urban Karens can always move to New York or Chicago where they will be safely shielded from all things worrisome. Yes, I would rather choose the method of carry that best suits the situation, but refuse to ask government permission or pay fees to exercise my pre-governmental rights.
What places do you think I am even discussing? This entire thread, I have been referring precisely to deep blue safe spaces like the ones you mention.

San Francisco and Los Angeles are just as, if not even more, liberal than New York and Chicago. Even if open carry becomes legal on paper in California, we will still not be able to safely exercise the right in the counties of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Marin, San Mateo, Contra Costa, Alameda, and Santa Clara, among others.

Once upon a time, I lived in San Jose. I know for a fact that panicked urbanites will dial 911, the police will respond, and no Supreme Court decision will make one iota of difference.

The local political reality is an integral part of the tactical discussion. Open carrying in an area and having the local population summon a SWAT team to shoot you is just as much of a problem as a criminal stealing your gun out of the holster.

Feel free to disagree, but I believe open carry is unexercisable in the San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento, and Los Angeles. Does this mean I am against open carry in general? Absolutely not. Instead of rehashing the same Constitutional principles repeatedly, I would like someone to volunteer to open carry in San Francisco if Nichols v. Newsom succeeds, and open carry becomes legal in the State of California. I recommend livestreaming on YouTube for lawyers to review the inevitable police interaction.
Reply With Quote
  #838  
Old 07-24-2023, 12:43 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,841
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven View Post
What places do you think I am even discussing? This entire thread, I have been referring precisely to deep blue safe spaces like the ones you mention.

San Francisco and Los Angeles are just as, if not even more, liberal than New York and Chicago. Even if open carry becomes legal on paper in California, we will still not be able to safely exercise the right in the counties of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Marin, San Mateo, Contra Costa, Alameda, and Santa Clara, among others.

Once upon a time, I lived in San Jose. I know for a fact that panicked urbanites will dial 911, the police will respond, and no Supreme Court decision will make one iota of difference.

The local political reality is an integral part of the tactical discussion. Open carrying in an area and having the local population summon a SWAT team to shoot you is just as much of a problem as a criminal stealing your gun out of the holster.

Feel free to disagree, but I believe open carry is unexercisable in the San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento, and Los Angeles. Does this mean I am against open carry in general? Absolutely not. Instead of rehashing the same Constitutional principles repeatedly, I would like someone to volunteer to open carry in San Francisco if Nichols v. Newsom succeeds, and open carry becomes legal in the State of California. I recommend livestreaming on YouTube for lawyers to review the inevitable police interaction.
I open carried in Sacramento. No one call 911. Police didn't shoot me.

Id open carry at venues in San Francisco. Makes no difference to me irrespective of the politics.
__________________



Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #839  
Old 07-25-2023, 7:27 AM
rplaw's Avatar
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,706
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
That's all really groovy, but you dodged the question. To repeat:

"Now let's get back to the real world. What do you think is gonna happen when when the police give the "Karen Admonishment" and the involved subject then does a mass shooting?"
Is that what happened when all those people used to OC at Starbux? Is that what happens in Az or Vermont, or any of the Constitutional carry states?

There is no obligation on the part of the police to come to anyone's aid. If someone calls and complains about a "man with a gun" who is doing nothing more than OC, then the caller needs to be told what the law is.

If the "man with a gun" turns into a homicidal lunatic, then "Karen" should have armed herself and made sure she knew how to use her arms before the bad guy showed up. Otherwise she's stuck in a position of calling for help from the police which has no legal or social obligation to do anything. Tough luck but that's the way it is and she made the voluntary choice to be a victim by refusing to protect herself and expecting someone else to do it for her. Someone who has no legal obligation to do so.


In the end your argument is about the optics after an event. Actual reality trumps that position since; 1) statistically the odds aren't in favor of it happening and 2) that's not the law even if it did.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far.

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

My Utubery

Last edited by rplaw; 07-25-2023 at 7:31 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #840  
Old 07-25-2023, 9:25 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,285
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven View Post
What places do you think I am even discussing? This entire thread, I have been referring precisely to deep blue safe spaces like the ones you mention.

San Francisco and Los Angeles are just as, if not even more, liberal than New York and Chicago. Even if open carry becomes legal on paper in California, we will still not be able to safely exercise the right in the counties of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Marin, San Mateo, Contra Costa, Alameda, and Santa Clara, among others.

Once upon a time, I lived in San Jose. I know for a fact that panicked urbanites will dial 911, the police will respond, and no Supreme Court decision will make one iota of difference.

The local political reality is an integral part of the tactical discussion. Open carrying in an area and having the local population summon a SWAT team to shoot you is just as much of a problem as a criminal stealing your gun out of the holster.

Feel free to disagree, but I believe open carry is unexercisable in the San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento, and Los Angeles. Does this mean I am against open carry in general? Absolutely not. Instead of rehashing the same Constitutional principles repeatedly, I would like someone to volunteer to open carry in San Francisco if Nichols v. Newsom succeeds, and open carry becomes legal in the State of California. I recommend livestreaming on YouTube for lawyers to review the inevitable police interaction.
I’m your huckleberry…



https://www.YouTube.com/R8OWNspU_yE

Last edited by Paladin; 07-28-2023 at 10:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:31 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy