Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • #16
    CDMichel
    Member
    • May 2007
    • 111

    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. Litigating Second Amendment cases is a HEAVY legal lift. Sadly, well-intentioned but uninformed lawyers and plaintiffs who bring lawsuits like this hurt the 2A cause. You are NOT helping. I do not support this effort.
    Last edited by CDMichel; 07-07-2019, 2:33 PM.
    C. D. "Chuck" Michel
    MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
    180 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 200
    Long Beach, CA 90802
    Main: 562-216-4444 Email: cmichel@michellawyers.com
    Website: www.michellawyers.com
    Gun law info: www.calgunlaws.com
    Subscribe to Receive News and Alerts

    sigpic

    Comment

    • #17
      wchutt
      Senior Member
      • Jan 2011
      • 590

      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. Litigating Second Amendment cases is a HEAVY legal lift. Sadly, well-intentioned but uninformed lawyers and plaintiffs who bring lawsuits like this hurt the 2A cause. You are NOT helping. I do not support this effort.
      Could you go into a bit more depth as to your predicted problems this case brings and any other downside you see happening? I understand the general, "poor preparation leads to bad precedent" are there specifics about this case that are wrong?

      Comment

      • #18
        wolfwood
        Senior Member
        • Mar 2012
        • 1371

        Baird has filed for a preliminary injunction

        This document is a memorandum in support of a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs Mark Baird and Richard Gallardo against California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. The plaintiffs are arguing that several California laws restricting the open carry of firearms violate the Second Amendment. Specifically, they argue that the requirements that open carry license applicants demonstrate "good cause" and that licenses are issued at the discretion of local law enforcement are unconstitutional. They further argue that these restrictions amount to a de facto ban on open carry in California. The memorandum provides legal arguments and authorities to support the plaintiffs' position that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their Second Amendment claims.

        Comment

        • #19
          wchutt
          Senior Member
          • Jan 2011
          • 590

          Originally posted by wolfwood
          Baird has filed for a preliminary injunction

          https://www.scribd.com/document/4164...ary-Injunction
          To a layperson it seemed well reasoned, but a bit repetitive. Curious what the legal beagles responses will be, hopefully with specifics as to positives and negatives of the arguments presented.

          Comment

          • #20
            nerdoboy
            Junior Member
            • Jul 2019
            • 4

            Here to facilitate communication

            Hello - I am new to the board. I am helping Mark Baird with this case. I run the tokeepandbear.com website and newsletter. Mark is very interested in what you all are posting here and wants to engage in dialog where he can. His problem is time. He flies DC 10 fire suppression aircraft so he is in his busy season right now. When not flying he is a rancher.

            I will check here often and forward questions and comments to Mark. When he has time he will probably jump in himself. When he can't,I will try to forward his responses to you all in a timely manner.

            David Titchenal
            admin@tokeepandbear.com

            Comment

            • #21
              Highlander3751
              Junior Member
              • Feb 2015
              • 13

              I’m fairly new to all of this, but I’m trying to do my homework and research.

              Aside from Baird being behind other, similar cases like Young and Nichols, why isn’t this getting more support? I think the goal for all of us is to get the government’s greasy paws off of our Second Amendment rights, isn’t it? I would prefer that meant Permitless carry, open or concealed, at the carrier’s discretion.

              However, since the Supreme Court has ruled that “concealed carry is not a right,” and all nine justices (conservative, moderate, and liberal blocs) agreed unanimously on that point, that means open carry is our best shot. It may not be the fight we wanted, but it’s the fight we have, and the only one we have a chance of winning, given SCOTUS record of denying cert for concealed carry cases.

              Since open carry is the only method left that we can win for permitless carry, why are those efforts not receiving more backing, instead of filing concealed cases over and over again?

              Comment

              • #22
                nerdoboy
                Junior Member
                • Jul 2019
                • 4

                Highlander - there is plenty of grass roots support in certain areas of California for what Baird is doing. The entire State of Jefferson movement is supporting Mark both financially and with public relations efforts. That's 23 counties and hundreds of thousands of people. As to the mixed reactions on this thread I will let Baird speak for himself. As to the charge made by Mr. C. Michel that Baird is doing this for self-promotion I can unequivocally say that statement is absurd and beneath someone of Michel's reputation to even post something like that.

                Comment

                • #23
                  wolfwood
                  Senior Member
                  • Mar 2012
                  • 1371

                  Originally posted by nerdoboy
                  Highlander - there is plenty of grass roots support in certain areas of California for what Baird is doing. The entire State of Jefferson movement is supporting Mark both financially and with public relations efforts. That's 23 counties and hundreds of thousands of people. As to the mixed reactions on this thread I will let Baird speak for himself. As to the charge made by Mr. C. Michel that Baird is doing this for self-promotion I can unequivocally say that statement is absurd and beneath someone of Michel's reputation to even post something like that.
                  Have you thought about reaching out to CRPA to have them file an amicus brief (friend of the court) in support of Mark's case. It seems like opening up a dialog would be the best way to alleviate any anxiety they might have regarding the case. This would help CRPA as well because that would give them a chance to offer their perspective to the court.

                  Comment

                  • #24
                    Highlander3751
                    Junior Member
                    • Feb 2015
                    • 13

                    Originally posted by nerdoboy
                    Highlander - there is plenty of grass roots support in certain areas of California for what Baird is doing. The entire State of Jefferson movement is supporting Mark both financially and with public relations efforts. That's 23 counties and hundreds of thousands of people. As to the mixed reactions on this thread I will let Baird speak for himself. As to the charge made by Mr. C. Michel that Baird is doing this for self-promotion I can unequivocally say that statement is absurd and beneath someone of Michel's reputation to even post something like that.

                    Comment

                    • #25
                      nerdoboy
                      Junior Member
                      • Jul 2019
                      • 4

                      Originally posted by wolfwood
                      Have you thought about reaching out to CRPA to have them file an amicus brief (friend of the court) in support of Mark's case. It seems like opening up a dialog would be the best way to alleviate any anxiety they might have regarding the case. This would help CRPA as well because that would give them a chance to offer their perspective to the court.
                      In the process now of contacting organizations and sending info for the amicus brief requests. The three organizations contacted yesterday were positive..

                      Comment

                      • #26
                        mcbair
                        Member
                        • Jul 2019
                        • 154

                        Circular firing squad

                        It is not my habit to post on forums, but since this directly impacts me, I will make an attempt to explain the reasons for our lawsuit. Yes the lawsuit was my idea originally, but I take no credit, nor do I wish any. Thousands of patriots from Jefferson Counties are actively involved in an attempt to regain some of the Liberty we have all squandered through inaction, inattention, etc. The Jefferson Counties have also brought suit against California for lack of adequate representation, but that is another story.

                        We have the God given, pre-governmental Right to defense of self, family, community, state and nation. We know this because the Constitution says so in plain english as guaranteed in our Second Amendment. The California Constitution agrees in Art 1, Sec 1, Art 2, Sec 1, Art 3, Sec 1. California Governmental officials Swear, (or affirm) the same in Article 20. Government has NO Rights. Government is an inanimate object, and thus enjoys nothing the people do not give it, or in this case what it has usurped and stolen from the people. Only people have Rights. If that is true, what are we talking about here?

                        We allowed California government to take our liberty because Governor Reagan and Don Mulford had a bone to pick with the Black Panther Party in 1967. We again allowed California to strip us of what little remained of our rights in 2012, and 2013, when Little Anthony Portantino made our ability to carry unloaded weapons illegal. For more than 163 years, in California, a person could openly carry weapons, loaded until 1967, and unloaded until 2013. All of a sudden it is in the governments “interest” to balance your God Given Right to defense, with governments “interest” in maintaining order. Criminals don’t follow the law. Criminals are already barred from weapons possession. Whom, one may ask is the government subjecting to this “order” they want to maintain? The answer is easy....it’s YOU!

                        California Sheriffs are not the end all of law enforcement in our state, as they may or may not be in others. In California, Sheriffs work for the Attorney General. The Attorney General runs Cal DOJ. DOJ produces regulations and paperwork for your mother may I slips to carry concealed, or openly as permitted open carry is all that is left to us according to our masters in Sacramento. The legislature has instructed DOJ that it has given Sheriffs and Police Chiefs the authority to decide “who may carry”, and (who may not), in order to protect its “delicately balanced” system designed to protect individual rights against the state’s interest in “maintaining order”.

                        Concealed carry is NOT a right. Cert denied in Peruta, end of story. There are only two ways to carry the gun. Openly or concealed. This nonsense, in my opinion, about “public” carry is designed by the state as a ruse to obscure the facts and denigrate the Right to a permission. There is no law against, carry in you home whether you have the gun in your bathrobe pocket or strapped to your hip over your PJs. Never has been. Open carry, the Right to wear bear or carry a loaded weapon in public for use offensively, or defensively, in the event of conflict with another person is the core Right guaranteed by the Second Amendment and further the Right Declares That It Shall Not Be Infringed.

                        PC 26150 (b)(2), and 26155 (b)(2), codify, in the state’s opinion, the only lawful avenue to ordinary citizens to Second Amendment guaranteed Rights, (concealed carry is not a Right. It is a permission at the whim of the state).

                        We have the Right, we know this. But what good is the Right, when no jurisdiction capable of issuing the permit, has ever done so.....not even one!
                        Further, what good is the Right when it ends in arrest at the county line on the way to Costco? What good is the Right, when one would have to apply in all 30 jurisdictions separately,(only 30 counties out of 58 have less than 200,000 populations. If you live in the other 28 counties you hav NO second Amendment Right at all). One would have to live in all of them simultaneously, (establish residence), Pay, and train, in all of them separately, convince thirty sheriffs or police chiefs that you have “good cause”, and finally sprout wings to fly over the counties in the middle to avoid arrest.

                        Look.... there is too much to say here. I will not engage in the circular firing squad where conservatives stand around and shoot each other in the foot because someone thinks their case is better. I applaud every patriot group or law firm trying to restore the Liberty we the people have allowed the state to take from us. I have never met Mr Michel and have never spoken to him. I don’t know why he thinks he knows what our motives are for this suit, don’t care. I say a rising tide floats all boats. I don’t care who wins, let’s just win!
                        Our group applauds any and all patriots who stand up and put the pressure on!
                        If you don’t agree with what we are doing, God bless you, and go follow you own path, but all any of us can ask is that you do no harm to anyone trying to do anything to restore our God given gifts.

                        Please if interested, read the complaint carefully. Constructive critique is welcome. Honest questions are welcome. My self or some one involved will monitor the site and we are happy and willing to engage. If conservatives, Christians, and gun owners would stop the circular firing squad, and start showing up to vote, contribute to cases, show up to court, we could take our state back from the liars in Sacramento in an instant.
                        Last edited by mcbair; 07-11-2019, 11:12 AM. Reason: forgot to add something.

                        Comment

                        • #27
                          tenemae
                          code Monkey
                          CGN Contributor - Lifetime
                          • Jun 2010
                          • 1680

                          Originally posted by mcbair
                          Constructive critique is welcome
                          I would love to engage, but in doing so on a public forum (where the DoJ is known to lurk) I would be doing the state's job for them. Not that I think it will be difficult for them to torpedo this case in the first place. For example:
                          Originally posted by mcbair
                          If you live in the other 28 counties you hav NO second Amendment Right at all)
                          When you make arguments like this, it's reminiscent of the statement "What part of shall not be infringed don't you understand". You claim that I, by living in a high pop. county, have "NO second Amendment Right at all". Yet I own firearms. We can nitpick over the definitions of rights and privileges, but that's not an argument you're going to win in front of a judge in CA. Not unless NYSRPA hands down a mandate in scrutiny, but at that point we've won anyways. All you'll be doing in the meantime is building precedent against the second amendment and making other legal challenges less likely to succeed.

                          I get the impatience- I really do. There's an overbearing sense of despair that comes from being a 2A advocate in Ca these days. We all feel we have to "stand up and do something" to stop the loss of our rights completely. I understand that you have all of our best interests at heart. But can you understand how what you're doing might be actually hurting rather than helping us?

                          Comment

                          • #28
                            sbrady@Michel&Associates
                            Senior Member
                            • Nov 2009
                            • 718

                            Peruta was not about "a right to concealed carry." It was about a right to carry in some manner, San Diego County just happened to only allow concealed carry licenses.

                            Two Supreme Court justices (Thomas and Gorsuch) recognized such in dissenting to the denial of SCOTUS reviewing Perutahttp://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...Certiorari.pdf

                            That people pushing litigation in this arena are unaware of that fact, and don't understand its ramifications, is disconcerting to say the least.
                            sigpic
                            SBrady@michellawyers.com
                            www.michellawyers.com
                            www.calgunlaws.com
                            Subscribe to Receive News Bulletins

                            Comment

                            • #29
                              taperxz
                              I need a LIFE!!
                              • Feb 2010
                              • 19395

                              The biggest issue with different entities filing lawsuits with very little experience in the gun world in this state is that they have no idea what other suits have done to set up other potential lawsuits.

                              They also think the Lawyers that work for the State of California are stupid which isn't the case at all! They know exactly how the courts will generally act towards their arguments and are good at framing their arguments to be welcomed by 9th circuit judges until lately with a slight swing in the 9th.

                              Not here to bash anyone but its kinda like jumping into the chess game and not even knowing what the strategy.

                              Comment

                              • #30
                                pacrat
                                I need a LIFE!!
                                • May 2014
                                • 10254

                                Originally posted by Highlander3751
                                given SCOTUS record of denying cert for concealed carry cases.

                                Since open carry is the only method left that we can win for permitless carry, why are those efforts not receiving more backing, instead of filing concealed cases over and over again?
                                Please cite the case that SCOTUS unanimously ruled that CCW is NOT a RIGHT.

                                Denying cert for a case is not by any means a "Unanimous" ruling against the petitioner.

                                New member "mcbair" said;

                                Concealed carry is NOT a right. Cert denied in Peruta, end of story.

                                "mcbair", you seem to be laboring under the same misconception as Highlander.

                                There are a lot of chapters left in this "story".

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                UA-8071174-1