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

[sfpcservice]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23a274.html

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-526.html

//
// Case info -- Librarian
//

12 - 07 - 2022 Pre-trial motions must be in by Aug 31 2023; looks like trial September 2023?



His (Nichols') website has updates if you scroll down, last update being 11/14/2020 talking about the case's 10th year:

https://californiaopencarry.com/status-of-my-federal-open-carry-lawsuit/

He's planning on getting a lawyer for SCOTUS (and/or en banc) last I checked.

Apparently Michel & Associates are maintaining a document page for this case: http://michellawyers.com/nichols-v-harris/

Last substantive filing seems to be from the court on 2/27/18. Seems to be on hold for Young vs Hawaii.

Case seems to have begun 11/30/2011

=====================================


I saw on the opencarry blog that Nichols brief to the 9th was due yesterday, but didn't see a link.. Also, I'm noticing that there isn't a lot of talk on here about this case..

It seems to me a win for Nichols would virtually force CA to embrace Shall Issue, so why no excitement about this case?

============================

[dustoff31]

Maybe because it's being heard in the 9th circuit and everyone pretty much knows how it will end?

[Librarian]

Don't know if this page is still current: http://michellawyers.com/nichols-v-harris/

[pacrat]

I saw on the opencarry blog that Nichols brief to the 9th was due yesterday, but didn't see a link.. Also, I'm noticing that there isn't a lot of talk on here about this case..

It seems to me a win for Nichols would virtually force CA to embrace Shall Issue, so why no excitement about this case?

An OC win would be a good thing. But not as good as "Shall Issue". Two seperate things.

The Liberal Pols and the Judges on the Ninth that serve them have an agenda of "divide and conquer". They have divided OC and CC as two serperate things under the Keep and Bear Clause of the 2A. Supplementing their ongoing, "Death of A Thousand Cuts" program.

So an OC win will likely mean death to Shall Issue as far as the Ninth and the state of Commyfornia is concerned.

JM2c

[Frisco3Gun]

I still blame Charles Nichols for the Peruta decision. If he hadn't gone all history major in his brief, I think we'd have shall issue statewide.

[IVC]

An OC win would be a good thing. But not as good as "Shall Issue". Two seperate things.

A proper OC win would lead to Shall Issue after months of OC meetings at Berkeley coffee shops to annoy the sensibilities of the local hippies.

That's why we won't get OC. We either get the "two step analysis" where "carry is not the core of the right, therefore intermediate scrutiny rational basis," or we get an "OC is allowed as long as you're in the boonies." We might even get an outright dishonest: "states can choose concealed carry over open carry and CA has chosen concealed carry (but, but, but, Peruta... we are not addressing Peruta here.)

[randomBytes]

There is no way to read the en banc peruta ruling and have any expectation that an honest ruling will happen here.
They will say "CC is available" you lose. History, constitution, BOR all have nothing to do with it.

[ojisan]

A proper OC win would lead to Shall Issue after months of OC meetings at Berkeley coffee shops to annoy the sensibilities of the local hippies.

That's why we won't get OC. We either get the "two step analysis" where "carry is not the core of the right, therefore intermediate scrutiny rational basis," or we get an "OC is allowed as long as you're in the boonies." We might even get an outright dishonest: "states can choose concealed carry over open carry and CA has chosen concealed carry (but, but, but, Peruta... we are not addressing Peruta here.)

There is no way to read the en banc peruta ruling and have any expectation that an honest ruling will happen here.
They will say "CC is available" you lose. History, constitution, BOR all have nothing to do with it.

Yup.
It's a sad state of affairs.

(IVC, I presume you mean shall issue CCW)

[Paladin]

Also, I'm noticing that there isn't a lot of talk on here about this case..

It seems to me a win for Nichols would virtually force CA to embrace Shall Issue, so why no excitement about this case?

Because Nichols is asking/has asked CA9 to hold his case until Peruta is finalized. If Peruta goes full court en banc and then to SCOTUS, that means Nichols won't even restart for ~3 years....

Even if full court en banc is denied and cert is denied, we're talking ~1 more year until anything moves in Nichols.

IOW, Nichols is on the "sandwich and nap" track.

[lowimpactuser]

Because Nichols is asking/has asked CA9 to hold his case until Peruta is finalized. If Peruta goes full court en banc and then to SCOTUS, that means Nichols won't even restart for ~3 years....

Even if full court en banc is denied and cert is denied, we're talking ~1 more year until anything moves in Nichols.

IOW, Nichols is on the "sandwich and nap" track.

Paladin, you really need to vary things up.

If you're going to continue to post "sandwich and a nap",

you need to post Sandwich and a Nap

[Elgatodeacero]

I still blame Charles Nichols for the Peruta decision. If he hadn't gone all history major in his brief, I think we'd have shall issue statewide.

This is unfair and incorrect.

Mr. Nichols is not very likeable, and Im not convinced he knows what he is doing or why, but Peruta is absolutely not his fault in any way.

One thing that makes no sense is Mr. Nichols asking for his case to be stayed. He should be seeking a full decision asap.

He seeks very specific relief that the Peruta panel purposefully (and in my view improperly) ignored. He wants only loaded open carry which is flatly banned, no real exceptions. I quicky scanned his latest motion for a stay and he is arguing that the contents of his opening brief depend upon the final outcome of Peruta. Maybe I am just too thick to understand, but I thought Nichols entire argument was basically "that Peruta case was wrong because concealed carry can never be the right."

If I understand Mr. Nichols arguments correctly, then it would appearthe outcome of Peruta is totally irrelevant to his demand for loaded open carry.

Why he wants a stay is hard to fathom. But the Peruta decision is not in any way his fault or his doing in my opinion, and I dont see what the Peruta decision has to do with his loaded open carry claim?

[lowimpactuser]

This is unfair and incorrect.

Mr. Nichols is not very likeable, and Im not convinced he knows what he is doing or why, but Peruta is absolutely not his fault in any way.

One thing that makes no sense is Mr. Nichols asking for his case to be stayed. He should be seeking a full decision asap.

He seeks very specific relief that the Peruta panel purposefully (and in my view improperly) ignored. He wants only loaded open carry which is flatly banned, no real exceptions. I quicky scanned his latest motion for a stay and he is arguing that the contents of his opening brief depend upon the final outcome of Peruta. Maybe I am just too thick to understand, but I thought Nichols entire argument was basically "that Peruta case was wrong because concealed carry can never be the right."

If I understand Mr. Nichols arguments correctly, then it would appearthe outcome of Peruta is totally irrelevant to his demand for loaded open carry.

Why he wants a stay is hard to fathom. But the Peruta decision is not in any way his fault or his doing in my opinion, and I dont see what the Peruta decision has to do with his loaded open carry claim?

I think he would agree that Peruta isn't relevant to his case, and I would agree, if Frisco REALLY thinks that Nichols dug up history that the committed anti-gun 9th wouldn't, or couldn't, over the length of time the en banc panel took, well, he really thinks so little of the 9th circuit I'm surprised he thinks it can render any good decisions.

I think Nichols is actually fairly clever for asking for his case to be held pending Peruta. If not, then the courts could craft, in one fell swoop, an explanation to deny ALL carry cases, open or concealed, without telegraphing HOW ahead of time. That gives the courts the advantage.

By forcing them to do it piecemeal, they can't craft a grand strategy, but rather a piecemeal one, including increasing the chances of errors on the court's side.

There's only a marginal time gain to be had by not staying pending Peruta; and further, if courts really want to drag things out, there's nothing we can do.

So if you don't stay Nichols... the case can be delayed indefinitely, all dependent on if the courts want to.

If you DO stay it, Nichols will wait for a long-winded case that courts can delay indefinitely, all dependent on if the courts want to, THEN, it can be delayed indefinitely, all dependent on if the courts want to.

Honestly, there's not much of a difference- it all depends on the courts. All Nichols is doing is taking their ability to silence us in one fell swoop, with a grand overarching legal strategy to frustrate us, and make them fight us in a less organized way, which makes it look a lot worse.

Think about it: if Nichols had been decided along with Peruta, and the courts said, "NO CARRY IS A RIGHT"-

How much better off would we be?

As is, the ruling is "CONCEALED IS NOT A RIGHT; WHO KNOWS ABOUT OPEN CARRY"

If they THEN decide, "WE SAID CONCEALED IS NOT A RIGHT AND WHO KNOWS ABOUT OPEN CARRY, BUT NOW THAT WE'RE ASKED- NO CARRY IS THE RIGHT"

It looks much, much worse.

No benefit.

[Elgatodeacero]

Im sorry, but I do not see the difference in those two outcomes.

Your theory does not make sense to me. The goal is to get the 9th or any court to agree that carrying a loaded gun in some manner is a constitutional right.

If they are going to deny us the "bear arms" then I say make them do so now. I dont think they have the guts, so call the bluff and force them to take a position.

[lowimpactuser]

Im sorry, but I do not see the difference in those two outcomes.

Your theory does not make sense to me. The goal is to get the 9th or any court to agree that carrying a loaded gun in some manner is a constitutional right.

If they are going to deny us the "bear arms" then I say make them do so now. I dont think they have the guts, so call the bluff and force them to take a position.

Lol.

They totally do.

If the actions of courts seem to still be motivated by good faith in laws, and not a jihad against guns, then I don't know what to tell you, except I'm going to tell "told you so" when I'm proven right.

If you really think they'll give us bear in any useful, liberated form, then congrats on the Alaskan thunderfu(k, or similar strain you must be smoking.

This makes them work harder, and at least gives Nichols some control of the situation, as opposed to everything being the court's timeline and sweeping decision.

Think of it this way. Either you think Nichols is crazy/bad case, which means there's no need to rush a crazy before the courts to get unforced errors and make us lose. If he's crazy, then Peruta/Richards/baker/young is our best hope; and having Nichols stay out is the best possible outcome, so he doesn't screw up the competent lawyers who have much more experience.

If you think that Nichols is right when everyone else is wrong, and his pro-se case is way stronger and the ACTUAL right, then the fact that Nichols is right when literally everyone else is WRONG means that he should be granted deference on this matter because he has been consistently right in everything else despite all odds.

So... If he's an idiot, it's good he's asking his case to be held. If he's a genius, he should be given the benefit of the doubt.

I only understand you thinking he shouldn't stay his case for two reasons:

1. Nichols is a genius who's been right every step of the way despite all odds, but NOW he's broken his track record and is completely wrong

Or

2. You're impatient.

[Elgatodeacero]

I understand your views, but there are additional possibilities beyond what you offered. Patience is not always a virtue, and too mich patience becomes apathy.

The prime evidence the 9th Circuit court doesnt have the guts to explicitly erase "bear arms" from the Constitution is that the Peruta en banc panel went way, way, way out their way to avoid even addressing the issue, and instead just said "concealed carry not a right."

If the court was as set on erasing the right to bear arms as you contend, then a) it makes no difference who brings these cases and no difference when they are brought, and b) they would already have said so in Peruta en banc decision.

Since we have no ability to carry arms in California, we have nothing to lose by forcing the issue and making the Court take an extreme position, and this has best chance of Scotus review.