Is Nichols Vs Brown now a viable option?

[sdfire]

So now that we lost Peruta and concealed carry, will the court finally rule on Nichols vs Brown and allow open carry? Or do we have to wait for it to go to the Supreme Court?

[toblerra]

I have no idea but I'd like to hear from the guys who do

[snowdog650]

In 2 weeks.

[Metal God]

whether the Second Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public,
such as open carry. That question was left open by the
Supreme Court in Heller, and we have no need to answer it
here.

They already set them selves up to punt Nichols as well . The fact they put in writing open carry is still an open question says to me they have no intention of ruling in favor of Nichols .

[sdfire]

It just seems like the Peruta decision now reinforces the arguments made by Nichols case even more. Since you cannot apply for an open carry permit, and concealed carry in most counties is not allowed with out "good cause". Most sheriffs in the state don't think that self defense is a good cause, while the supreme court and constitution say otherwise. I am mainly wondering if the NRA/CRPA will still stand in the way of Nichols now that their dead horse is out of the race.

[lowimpactuser]

They already set them selves up to punt Nichols as well . The fact they put in writing open carry is still an open question says to me they have no intention of ruling in favor of Nichols .

The fact that they're the 9th circuit, they took an en banc of the amazing written Peruta and played judicial games in deciding that Peruta didn't insist on the entire regulatory scheme ENOUGH is the proof you should need.

[lowimpactuser]

It just seems like the Peruta decision now reinforces the arguments made by Nichols case even more. Since you cannot apply for an open carry permit, and concealed carry in most counties is not allowed with out "good cause". Most sheriffs in the state don't think that self defense is a good cause, while the supreme court and constitution say otherwise. I am mainly wondering if the NRA/CRPA will still stand in the way of Nichols now that their dead horse is out of the race.

Why do you think these bastards will give us anything nice?

Which of the following three does not fit with the others:

Gunpocalypse- legislative Branch

Safety for all- voters

A right to carry firearms- 9th circuit.

[sdfire]

It's definitely a **** show.

[Metal God]

I have not followed Nichols but it seemed most were saying he was making the wrong argument for his case . Again I don't know anything about the case but what drive by things I've read . If his case is not actually legally strong . The court could have kept that in mind when writing the Peruta dession knowing they will likely rule against Nichols as well .

Not sure if that makes sense but there was a lot of push back on the Nichols case from some pretty smart people on are side . I'd think there must be something to all that .

[mrfat]

So now that we lost Peruta and concealed carry, will the court finally rule on Nichols vs Brown and allow open carry? Or do we have to wait for it to go to the Supreme Court?

They'll rule on Nichols but not in our favor.

A lot of people think that the Moore decision in the 7th circuit has to be adhered to nationally or else we need a supreme court ruling. Moore basically said that a state has to "allow the public carry of firearms in some form".


So those backing Peruta wanted Nichols to drop his case. They didn't want open carry as that provides an alternative and thus concealed carry(CC) isn't need. They contended that since open carry(OC) is outlawed in CA then they must allow CC. Well the court today said nope. But they aren't even really banning CC. They are saying shall issue is not warranted and IA can use highly subjective criteria such as 'good cause' to be basis for issuance.

Nichols OC will also be shot down and can still abide by the Moore ruling and Heller. CC is still legal so that is our option for public carry. Yes, it may be effectively impossible to obtain since it's not shall issue but technically it's still an option and thus abides by previous rulings.

An appeal to the Supreme Court in either the Peruta or Nichols case will likely be denied as there's no discrepancy with rulings in other districts.


We should hope Nichols prevails even if we are restricted only to open UNLOADED carry. This will force issuing agencies(IA) to reconsider their CCW polices and the good cause requirement. As a sheriff or police chief I'd much rather have people running around with concealed guns rather than open carry and causing hysteria.

But the reality is Nichols will be denied since we still technically have a form of public carry. The end result is the 9th district has legally achieved an effective ban on public carry altogether.

Coupled with pending CA gun legislation this may turn out to be a terrible year for CA gun owners. And if Hillary is elected then it will really suck. Although I don't know how much more restrictive gun policies she could enact. I expect an assault weapons ban at the very least from her.

[Cokebottle]

They'll rule on Nichols but not in our favor.

A ruling in favor of Nichols would not necessarily be a ruling in our favor anyways.

A ruling in favor of Nichols sets the stage for a state-level ban on CCW... Hawaii/Illinois style.

Legal OC would not address the issue of GFSZ, would not address the issue of unloaded carry... and most importantly, would strip the "concealed means concealed" issue when entering a business with a "no guns" sign... and thousands of those signs would appear within weeks.

[Paladin]

So now that we lost Peruta and concealed carry, will the court finally rule on Nichols vs Brown and allow open carry? Or do we have to wait for it to go to the Supreme Court?

What "court"?

Nichols is before CA9 and hasn't even accepted opening briefs, much less heard oral arguments yet.

ETA: assuming Nichols is heard this fall, I would not expect a decision from the 3-judge panel before spring 2017, earliest. After that, losing side will request rehearing or rehearing en banc, so that's another year. Then after that, SCOTUS (another year if they take it). This is all assuming it does not get thrown back down to district court for some reason. Bottom line: Don't hold your breath waiting for "the court" to "finally rule on Nichols v. Brown."

Yeah, I can hardly wait to OC....

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/02/03/open-carrier-robbed-gun-virginia/

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/05/01/clueless-open-carrier-robbed-gun-arizona/

Seems to me like it would be best to do OCing w/at least one other person to cover each others' backs.

[Paladin]

It just seems like the Peruta decision now reinforces the arguments made by Nichols case even more. Since you cannot apply for an open carry permit, and concealed carry in most counties is not allowed with out "good cause". Most sheriffs in the state don't think that self defense is a good cause, while the supreme court and constitution say otherwise. I am mainly wondering if the NRA/CRPA will still stand in the way of Nichols now that their dead horse is out of the race.

Most CA sheriffs readily issue CA CCWs. A lot of them accept SD = GC.

While this map may be off by 1 shade/color on some counties (i.e., a light green county may in fact currently be yellow, or a dark green one may be light green), I don't know of any that are off by 2 colors (e.g., the map shows a county light red when it is in fact light green).

[CitaDeL]

May issue is STATEWIDE.

Most CA sheriffs readily issue CA CCWs. A lot of them accept SD = GC.

While this map may be off by 1 shade/color on some counties (i.e., a light green county may in fact currently be yellow, or a dark green one may be light green), I don't know of any that are off by 2 colors (e.g., the map shows a county light red when it is in fact light green).

I really wish you would shiit can this map.

58 county sheriffs administer a statute and apply their discretion as to whom is worthy to carry a firearm in public. This means 58 different interpretations of how a government agent can be an impediment to the unfettered right to keep and carry arms. By virtue that the government filters even one person away from their natural right, they have injured all.

[press1280]

They'll rule on Nichols but not in our favor.

A lot of people think that the Moore decision in the 7th circuit has to be adhered to nationally or else we need a supreme court ruling. Moore basically said that a state has to "allow the public carry of firearms in some form".


So those backing Peruta wanted Nichols to drop his case. They didn't want open carry as that provides an alternative and thus concealed carry(CC) isn't need. They contended that since open carry(OC) is outlawed in CA then they must allow CC. Well the court today said nope. But they aren't even really banning CC. They are saying shall issue is not warranted and IA can use highly subjective criteria such as 'good cause' to be basis for issuance.

Nichols OC will also be shot down and can still abide by the Moore ruling and Heller. CC is still legal so that is our option for public carry. Yes, it may be effectively impossible to obtain since it's not shall issue but technically it's still an option and thus abides by previous rulings.

An appeal to the Supreme Court in either the Peruta or Nichols case will likely be denied as there's no discrepancy with rulings in other districts.


We should hope Nichols prevails even if we are restricted only to open UNLOADED carry. This will force issuing agencies(IA) to reconsider their CCW polices and the good cause requirement. As a sheriff or police chief I'd much rather have people running around with concealed guns rather than open carry and causing hysteria.

But the reality is Nichols will be denied since we still technically have a form of public carry. The end result is the 9th district has legally achieved an effective ban on public carry altogether.

Coupled with pending CA gun legislation this may turn out to be a terrible year for CA gun owners. And if Hillary is elected then it will really suck. Although I don't know how much more restrictive gun policies she could enact. I expect an assault weapons ban at the very least from her.

The words used by the opinion in that CCW isn't part of the 2A for "members of the general population" is rather odd and makes me think they're planning to do a switcheroo when Nichols case gets ruled on. The kangaroo court will say well, open carry isn't really protected either but if one produces a "good cause", then the 2A is fulfilled through a CCW permit.