Open carry arrest to create standing for a Federal lawsuit...?

[SanPedroShooter]

Once again, groan......

Someone else should make a comment cause I dont have one.

http://www.ktla.com/videogallery/70067504/News/Man-Not-Arrested-After-Bringing-Rifle-to-Pier---Glen-Walker-reports

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_20676105/open-carry-activist-packs-heat-make-point-redondo

And AB144 does not, or will not apply to this guy because he is trying to get arrested... He just got a ticket, although the po-lice did jack his gun.

Is CN losing his last few marbles? I do find it somewhat humorus that the RB police are sort of handling him with a gentle touch... I think some of those UOC payouts may have smacked a few hands, but this guy is seriously stepping on his dick here, and ours too...

You dont see Gura down at the pier carrying around his rifle on a sunday.....

From the Daily Breeze article:

He is endangering the safety the community by pushing a political agenda and putting dangerous firearms into our daily lives," said Sheri Barnett, a spokeswoman for the group. "He is scaring the community and inciting gun violence." Huh...?

A pair of tourists looked on as Nichols walked around the pier, distributing a press release aimed at building support - political and financial - for his lawsuit.

"I think it would be intimidating for other people to see some armed man," said Gary Boccabella, who was visiting the area from Calgary with his wife, Pamela. "You have to look at safety and security. I would ask him why he thinks it's necessary to carry a rifle."

[taperxz]

CN has to stand before a judge for open carrying a long arm that was illegally taken from him. Unless he was in a GFSZ, he has a case.

Where that takes us, helps us or hurts us? I have no idea at this point.

[SanPedroShooter]

CN has to stand before a judge for open carrying a long arm that was illegally taken from him. Unless he was in a GFSZ, he has a case.

Where that takes us, helps us or hurts us? I have no idea at this point.

Right, thats why I dont really have a comment. He wasnt formally taken into custody, in fact the copppers just walked ten feet behind him as he cruised the pier, a place the city attorney has deceided is a city 'park' and therefore can ban guns... I will go out a limb and guess they were waiting for orders from on high...

They did take his rifle and create a report, I assume CN will get a ticket or a summons in the mail. But maybe not. Remember that O. Henry story about the bum trying to get into prison for the winter, but he couldnt get arrested no matter what he did?

Maybe CN can go down to the pier and shoot a few seagulls. They would probably arrest him for that.....

[taperxz]

CN said his firearm was taken illegally. It appears it was. If LE did this in front of the cameras, it was a PR move. Risk an illegal seizure and return with apologies but gain public support. Good move CN you just helped Portantino.

[HowardW56]

Cue Twilight Zone theme

[RazzB7]

"How do you shoot yourself in the foot with an unloaded weapon?"

[SanPedroShooter]

CN said his firearm was taken illegally. It appears it was. If LE did this in front of the cameras, it was a PR move. Risk an illegal seizure and return with apologies but gain public support. Good move CN you just helped Portantino.

Well he says a lot of things... But maybe he has a point. What happens when you have a lawfully owned and carried gun in a gun free zone, not a federal or state one, in this case a city park (this may be a whole nother issue) ? Dont they just ask you to leave? If you dont leave, you are tresspasing. Do they seize your gun? They did in this case....

[taperxz]

Well he says a lot of things... But maybe he has a point. What happens when you have a lawfully owned and carried gun in a gun free zone (not a federal or state one) in this case a city park? Dont they just ask you to leave? If you dont leave, you are tresspasing. Do they seize your gun? They did in this case....

City Park? Is not a sensitive place. Regardless of how RB spins it. Maybe CN is playing with Gene on this one. Gene is plaintiff v San Mateo county on parks.

Oh well CN is true to form on this one. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

[Mrbroom]

Firearm was siezed because he went into Veterans Park. RB city ordinance says "no firearms in the park". I believe Mike Webb (RB City Attorney) gave up on the peir as a park issue.. But not sure on that..

[gun toting monkeyboy]

In this one, he may have a case. But that doesn't make him any less of a tool. And one that is a danger to the long-term objectives that the people at CGF and SAF have been working towards for years. All because he is a clueless asshat with delussions of grandure.

-Mb

[Decoligny]

CN is showing his vast accumulation of legal knowledge.

He taped a round of ammunition to his stock in order to "violate the state law".

He obviously doesn't know about the concept of case law.

Specifically: People v. Clark (1996) which clearly declares that it is legal to have ammuntion attached to the firearm, just not in a position from which the ammuntion can be fired.

[SanPedroShooter]

CN is showing his vast accumulation of legal knowledge.

He taped a round of ammunition to his stock in order to "violate the state law".

He obviously doesn't know about the concept of case law.

Specifically: People v. Clark (1996) which clearly declares that it is legal to have ammuntion attached to the firearm, just not in a position from which the ammuntion can be fired.

I didnt really get that either... Maybe he never read People v Clark?

He should have loaded the damn thing if he wants to get arrested for LOC.... Better yet, why not a handgun?

Maybe he is playing around with the various vague and arbritrary California gun laws. However, I still dont belive he knows what he is doing.

Its amazing how easy it is to make waves on this issue in California, I am suprised it doesnt happen more often.

[CitaDeL]

Let's count the mistakes made

1) Confusing transport of an unloaded firearm with the Constitutional meaning of 'bear'. This misunderstanding has led to the series of missteps that follow.
2) Suing in Federal court without having first obtained standing.
3) Believing that one can 'create' standing after filing a lawsuit by instigating an arrest that isn't wholly related to the previous complaint.
4) Announcing through press releases and invitations to city leaders, attorneys, police, and state legislators that you intend on violating the law at a particular location, date and time.
5) Following up this announcement by showing up to walk around with an unloaded shotgun that is not a violation of the law.

The only concievable win for CN is suing for the forth amendment seizure of his property- which has nothing to do with the second amendment.

[CitaDeL]

He should have loaded the damn thing if he wants to get arrested for LOC.... Better yet, why not a handgun?

This^ is what he needed to do to obtain standing before he decided to file his lawsuit.

[SanPedroShooter]

Let's count the mistakes made

1) Confusing transport of an unloaded firearm with the Constitutional meaning of 'bear'. This misunderstanding has led to the series of missteps that follow.
2) Suing in Federal court without having first obtained standing.
3) Believing that one can 'create' standing after filing a lawsuit by instigating an arrest that isn't wholly related to the previous complaint.
4) Announcing through press releases and invitations to city leaders, attorneys, police, and state legislators that you intend on violating the law at a particular location, date and time.
5) Following up this announcement by showing up to walk around with an unloaded shotgun that is not a violation of the law.

The only concievable win for CN is suing for the forth amendment seizure of his property- which has nothing to do with the second amendment.

Good analysis. I am still wondering, besides a tangenital relationship, what toting an unloaded gun has to do with the Second Amendment? It seems like at best, a 1A issue to me. The whole thing is so confused.

Number 5 is really the puzzling part to me. Does he argue that 'bear' in 'keep and bear' means being able to carry an unloaded gun? I would think he would at least load the thing. Of course, then he would be another criminal defendant trying to use the 2A as a shield for their bad behavior.... I get the feeling this guy has no idea what he is doing, he proves it over and over.