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

[wolfwood]

new open carry case filed in CA

Interesting it is arguing that the sheriff could but refuses to issue open carry permits.

https://www.scribd.com/document/405650450/Mark-Baird-Complaint-Filed

you can donate to this lawsuit at the below link

http://tokeepandbear.com/index.php/donation-to-the-law-suit-2/?fbclid=IwAR0R7OOow-VNx0t8NYdzM6X3zj9qmhyfuN8SIiYflBOGTGDE8ljirxmrwSs

[TruOil]

Interesting choice of counties, since Shasta is virtually shall issue CCW and Siskiyou isn't far off of that. Both sheriffs are pro-2A, except, I guess, when it comes to open carry. Which is strange since a lot of each county is national forest where open carry is legal without a license. It really pushes some buttons after Peruta, and may result in an interesting trial court decision since Nichols' case is stayed for the foreseeable future. Then again, an open carry license, allowing carry in incorporated areas, is virtually useless because of the GFSZA.

Let us know when it is assigned to a judge so we can see who it is. The EDCal, being in Sacramento, has both very liberal and conservative judges.

[sfpcservice]

Yeah, how does that "open carry is legal in a national Forest" thing work if you're drive ng on a Forest road or just happen to need to walk across a road to get from one middle of the woods to the other...?

[BumBum]

Oh no, not one of these again. Another chip off of the ol' Charles Nichols block. Granted, this guy at least hired attorneys, but I've never heard of them in connection with 2nd Amendment civil rights litigation in California.

Here are some of the glaring legal issues I noticed right off the bat:

- Only AG Becerra is a named defendant, yet the AG's office has no involvementState of Jefferson leader to file lawsuit blocking CA open carry law. I do have a couple of issues with this author's statements:

Even if the judge rules against the TRO/PI, it can be appealed, and TRO/PI lawsuits are expedited and would jump ahead of other lawsuits currently challenging the bans on open carry.

No, this is not true at all. There are already open AND concealed carry challenges pending before the Ninth Circuit (in addition to Young v. Hawaii, Michel & Associates just recently filed Livingston v. Ballard in Hawaii). This lawsuit does not get to "jump ahead".

No, please don't. In order to handle this type of case at the appropriate level of competence, a federal lawsuit and appeal should cost a whole lot more than this. Think about it, for an average attorney charging $400 per hour, this is only going to pay for 62.5 hours of their time. That just doesn't add up. Please contribute your hard-earned dollars instead to the reputable efforts of NRA/CRPA.

Look, I'm sure Mr. Baird's and Mr. Gallardo's hearts are in the right place. We all want swift justice and our rights restored without delay. Unfortunately our court system just doesn't work that way. My prediction is that this Complaint gets disposed with a quick Motion to Dismiss.

[wolfwood]

Oh no, not one of these again. Another chip off of the ol' Charles Nichols block. Granted, this guy at least hired attorneys, but I've never heard of them in connection with 2nd Amendment civil rights litigation in California.

Here are some of the glaring legal issues I noticed right off the bat:

- Only AG Becerra is a named defendant, yet the AG's office has no involvementState of Jefferson leader to file lawsuit blocking CA open carry law. I do have a couple of issues with this author's statements:



No, this is not true at all. There are already open AND concealed carry challenges pending before the Ninth Circuit (in addition to Young v. Hawaii, Michel & Associates just recently filed Livingston v. Ballard in Hawaii). This lawsuit does not get to "jump ahead".



No, please don't. In order to handle this type of case at the appropriate level of competence, a federal lawsuit and appeal should cost a whole lot more than this. Think about it, for an average attorney charging $400 per hour, this is only going to pay for 62.5 hours of their time. That just doesn't add up. Please contribute your hard-earned dollars instead to the reputable efforts of NRA/CRPA.

Look, I'm sure Mr. Baird's and Mr. Gallardo's hearts are in the right place. We all want swift justice and our rights restored without delay. Unfortunately our court system just doesn't work that way. My prediction is that this Complaint gets disposed with a quick Motion to Dismiss.

preliminary injunction appeals are expedited so if he files one it will be expedited and he will catch up to Flanegan. Those are the rules.

The same thing happened with Peruta and Baker v kealoha
Peruta was appealed years earlier but Baker was a PI appeal so even though it was years behind Peruta the two cases were argued the same day. The same will likely happen here.

[BumBum]

preliminary injunction appeals are expedited so if he files one it will be expedited and he will catch up to Flanegan. Those are the rules.

The same thing happened with Peruta and Baker v kealoha
Peruta was appealed years earlier but Baker was a PI appeal so even though it was years behind Peruta the two cases were argued the same day. The same will likely happen here.

I thought that this only applied to injunctions that were granted. I could be wrong here and would stand corrected if so. My appellate experience is mostly limited to state court and none involved injunctions. But I do disagree that the same would happen here, in light of the other threshold issues that I mentioned.

[whatevs09]

the complaint shows that both plaintiffs applied for open carry more than once and were declined. pg 10 of the complaint has key information supportive of the claims.

[BumBum]

The allegations are confusing, at best. It goes on and on about how there is no process by which to even apply, but they give zero details about how or when they supposedly applied. And again, these are decisions made by the individual county sheriff, not the AG's office. The sheriffs are the proper defendants to be named and they failed to do that. Remember back in Peruta, there was a whole controversy over whether the AG's office was even allowed to intervene, let alone be the solely named defendant.

[Unbekannt]

You know it is a full bore lawsuit when this appears:

12. The true names or capacities of Defendants DOES 1-10, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, are presently unknown to Plaintiffs and are therefore sued herein as
“Does 1

For the State Attorney General. In his case it ought to be Does 1 through 20 inclusive.

His parents were illegal and his true name has never been established.

[wolfwood]

I thought that this only applied to injunctions that were granted. I could be wrong here and would stand corrected if so. My appellate experience is mostly limited to state court and none involved injunctions. But I do disagree that the same would happen here, in light of the other threshold issues that I mentioned.

[BumBum]

Noted. But it also occurred to me, if the case isn't dismissed, the state is just going to seek a stay. What is the point, why is the case even necessary if the objective is just to catch up?

[TruOil]

The allegations are confusing, at best. It goes on and on about how there is no process by which to even apply, but they give zero details about how or when they supposedly applied. And again, these are decisions made by the individual county sheriff, not the AG's office. The sheriffs are the proper defendants to be named and they failed to do that. Remember back in Peruta, there was a whole controversy over whether the AG's office was even allowed to intervene, let alone be the solely named defendant.

Well, it could be said that the AG is a proper party since, as I recall, the CCW form is mandatory, and the AG has not issued a form that provides for an open carry permit.

[whatevs09]

tentative court date in Sac. is Sep 6, 2019.

[whatevs09]

Court date confirmed! Fri Sep 6, 10 am, Matsui Courthouse, Sacramento. Judge Kim Mueller. http://tokeepandbear.com/ Unfortunately, the judge's online calendar only shows 28 days out. Clerk phone tel:1-916-930-4193; please spread the word and show up and support !!

[malfunction]

Mueller thinks the California Roster of Not-Unsafe Hanguns is totally cool and doesn't burden the 2A right at all, so I I think we know how this is going to go