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

[Paladin]

Has Mark Smith (Four Boxes Diner) ever discussed the 2A RBA OC vs CC or the Nichols case? If anyone can contact Smith his analysis would be appreciated. Don?t forget to mention that Nichols is seeking cert.

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

[40calfunk]

Has Mark Smith (Four Boxes Diner) ever discussed the 2A RBA OC vs CC or the Nichols case? If anyone can contact Smith his analysis would be appreciated. Don?t forget to mention that Nichols is seeking cert.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/23-526.html

I used to abhor "Twitter" but since realizing it has a new owner (and name), I am now a new user. I have seen that Mr. Nichols has commented recently in several posts notifying Mr. Smith of his lawsuit and SCOTUS petition, as I have done too, but has received no responses. I have a feeling that Mark is probably aware of this and is not touching this...yet.

As some have discussed, petitions rarely get cert and this may not warrant his energy/focus until, and if, it gets cert. I'd bet if it does, he will discuss its merits.

After watching Mr. Smith's videos for many months, I have gleaned from his comments in several of his discussions that CC may not be a "constitutional rock" to defend since it is not in this nation's history/tradition; nevertheless, it's the apparent path the country has taken in the past 30 years (CC of handguns over OC of all arms).

[AlmostHeaven]

I used to abhor "Twitter" but since realizing it has a new owner (and name), I am now a new user. I have seen that Mr. Nichols has commented recently in several posts notifying Mr. Smith of his lawsuit and SCOTUS petition, as I have done too, but has received no responses. I have a feeling that Mark is probably aware of this and is not touching this...yet.

As some have discussed, petitions rarely get cert and this may not warrant his energy/focus until, and if, it gets cert. I'd bet if it does, he will discuss its merits.

After watching Mr. Smith's videos for many months, I have gleaned from his comments in several of his discussions that CC may not be a "constitutional rock" to defend since it is not in this nation's history/tradition; nevertheless, it's the apparent path the country has taken in the past 30 years (CC of handguns over OC of all arms).

Twitter/X has many accounts worth following. In addition to @4BoxesDiner, I recommend @2AUpdates and @MorosKostas.

[40calfunk]

Mr. Nichols' SCOTUS docket just saw an Amicus Curiae brief filed by the Alabama-based Foundation for Moral Law.

[AlmostHeaven]

Mr. Nichols' SCOTUS docket just saw an Amicus Curiae brief filed by the Alabama-based Foundation for Moral Law.

I wonder whether any of the major gun rights organizations will file briefs. I hope so.

[Drivedabizness]

They won't

[tedw]

https://tinyurl.com/nhensuuk

Mr. Nichols video. He seems like a tired, dejected, jaded man. The many years of fighting in the court system appear to have taken their toll.

It is long past time for the US Supreme Court Judges to put a stop to this nonsense that is going on in the lower courts. Perhaps soon the Lord will touch the heart of Thomas or Alito or someone else and give them the guts to do what must be done.

[Paladin]

From Nichols? website:

Update December 1, 2023 ? At 1:19 PM I received an email from a state?s attorney informing me that Governor Newsom and AG Bonta filed a waiver to respond to my cert petition. My cert petition will now be distributed to all of the justices. If no response is requested then my cert petition will be scheduled for the January 5, 2024 SCOTUS conference and denied as of the following Monday.

[AlmostHeaven]

Two Weeks Days

[rplaw]

So today we find out if Mr. Nichols is correct in his prediction. We also find out if our SCOTUS has balls or not.

[snailbait]

CERTIORARI DENIED

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010824zor_cb7d.pdf

[SpookyWatcher]

Wow. And just like that it?s over. Best to mr Nichols. Thank you for your efforts

[Paladin]

CERTIORARI DENIED

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...24zor_cb7d.pdf

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

[tedw]

"I wish I could say that I was surprised that my petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment was denied but what little hope I had for it being granted was dashed when SCOTUS denied the Nicky Keo v. Massachusetts cert petition a week before I filed my cert petition.

Massachusetts requires a permit to possess a firearm. Absent a permit, it is a felony to merely possess a firearm. The judge and prosecutor agreed that Nicky Keo should not be sentenced to prison but Massachusetts law requires a mandatory minimum sentence of 18 months in prison.

But most tellingly, last January SCOTUS denied the application to lift the stay of the preliminary injunction against New York's post-Bruen carry ban in the case Antonyuk v. Nigrelli. There were no dissents, and Justices Alito and Thomas said they "respected" the denial of the application to vacate the stay.

As for what happens next, this Q&A exchange from Reddit answers the question.


Question: "What happens when (if as is now likely) the petition is denied, it just goes back to the prior court to be sweated out in further delay tactics (no final decision effectively) for eternity, in the lower courts? Being as you indicated you don't wish to devote more time to it, does the case get dismissed or does it move on forever in lower court?"


Answer: "My cert petition did not remove jurisdiction from the district court. The Federal magistrate judge stayed the district court proceedings and vacated the scheduling order just a few days before the State of California was required to file its motion for summary judgment. She said she "will set new case management deadlines and solicit input from the parties about whether additional time is needed to complete discovery before summary judgment motion(s) can be filed."

Neither the magistrate judge nor the district court judge has jurisdiction to reopen discovery or to do anything other than to comply with the mandate order of the court of appeals.

I intend to stop complying with these orders.

Absent a mandate limiting the district court's jurisdiction on remand, a case is dismissed for lack of prosecution. There is a five-factor test the district court is supposed to apply to determine whether or not a case is dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution. However, the district court does not have jurisdiction to dismiss my case and I won't be dismissing my case voluntarily. If my case is dismissed for lack of prosecution then I hope it is dismissed with prejudice because a dismissal with prejudice is a dismissal on the merits. I doubt that either the magistrate judge or the district court judge knows that. Or cares in the slightest.

But yes, delaying my case forever is certainly an option for the district court. SCOTUS had the opportunity to put a stop to the delay by simply construing my cert petition as a writ of mandamus. But it didn't."


Absent a favorable, early decision from the Baird v. Bonta appeal (should he file an appeal), I see no reason why the district court judges won't continue to delay a final judgment in my case as long as they like.



Regards,

Charles Nichols"

[RickD427]

My condolences to Mr. Nichols. You fought a good fight.

But the outcome really demonstrates how hard it is to get a case before the Supreme Court. You need a lot more than a compelling case. You really have to present an issue that the court seeks to hear as I discussed in my previous posting.

If we look to the conference that considered Mr. Nichols' request, it appears that they granted two, (2), ONLY TWO, requests for certiorari and they denied 295 (that's TWO HUNDRED NINETY FIVE) requests for certiorari.

Those are the odds that one is up against when trying to bring a case before the Supreme Court.