Nichols Gets Arrested in Redondo Beach for Open Carry

[dcmdon]

Everyone seems to be automatically discounting the possibility that upon appeal, a judge "might" strike down the city law. Shouldnt we be rooting for that instead of bashing Nichols ?

It will never get to trial for precisely the reason you imply above. If he is acquitted, his trial would become case law. For that reason, I'd bet anyone here a steak dinner that the charges will either be dismissed or if he doesn't have the cash, he will plead to a non-firearms misdemeanor like breach of peace.

[dcmdon]

I just noticed the video posted was shot by a bail bonds company. Do you think Nichols arrainged with a bail bondsman before the event thinking he was going to be arrested. I have a source that was there that said Nichols seemed confused and upset that he wasnt arrested. It now seems as though Nichols might by horribly mistaken about the law and which laws be was breaking and not breaking.

I wouldnt be surprised if the DA doesnt file charges simply because they dont want Nichols having ANY possible standing in any case.

However, maybe the government should want him to have standing because he doesnt seem to be a worthy opponent.

Nothing personal against Nichols.

My personal opinion is that he made a tactical error. In cases like this, its desirable to get yourself arrested UNLAWFULLY. i.e. arrested for breach of peace when you aren't actually breaking any laws.

By going into that park, he actually broke the law. That was a mistake.

[ConditionThree]

sorry GRAPESHOT, this might be a little inflammatory

the people of California are getting exactly what they voted for.

and any of you people that attack someone for pushing back against an unjust law should go there to live.

Or worse - are getting exactly that which the did not oppose at the polls.

Apparently, neither of you are familiar with the composition of our state legislature. Both houses are dominated by primarily urban anti-gun politicians. There is only meager support for 2A liberty and they are usually outvoted by margins of nearly 3:1. You cannot blame the California gunowner for the condition of the right to keep and bear arms as our ability to influence the political process by voting is almost nil. Likewise you cannot attribute our inability to halt the train of prohibitions that are uttered from our statehouse for lack of will or desire. The only way California can be turned back towards liberty is to change the nature of the constituency that keeps voting anti-gun blockheads into office or pursue a 2A reset the likes of which have not been seen since a little kerfuffle on Lexington Green.

As a California native and a long time open carry advocate I believe I have every right to criticize just how strategies are developed and how they are executed. In California, this activity is a thinking man's game, which requires wit and reason to evaluate risks and foreseeable outcomes. I do not believe Nichols has either to our detriment.

[papa bear]

Apparently, neither of you are familiar with the composition of our state legislature. Both houses are dominated by primarily urban anti-gun politicians. There is only meager support for 2A liberty and they are usually outvoted by margins of nearly 3:1. You cannot blame the California gunowner for the condition of the right to keep and bear arms as our ability to influence the political process by voting is almost nil. Likewise you cannot attribute our inability to halt the train of prohibitions that are uttered from our statehouse for lack of will or desire. The only way California can be turned back towards liberty is to change the nature of the constituency that keeps voting anti-gun blockheads into office or pursue a 2A reset the likes of which have not been seen since a little kerfuffle on Lexington Green.

As a California native and a long time open carry advocate I believe I have every right to criticize just how strategies are developed and how they are executed. In California, this activity is a thinking man's game, which requires wit and reason to evaluate risks and foreseeable outcomes. I do not believe Nichols has either to our detriment.

Sorry C3, I'll have to call BS. your situation in CA is no politically different than any other state in the union. who would have thought that 17 years ago that CC would become the form of carry. who would have thought that OK would have gotten OC. who would have thought that Alaska, Vermont and AZ would have become constitutional carry.that DC and Chicago would have had the supreme court rule against them in favor of the 2nd A.
you may be right there is a bastion of fruit loops out there, but there is also a vast part of the state that are right thinking, that needs just to convince the ones that don't think about their rights as much.

BTW, there are more and more thinking about their rights everyday it just takes some push and activism that works

[hammer6]

without reading all the posts in this thread, i apologize if this has been said.

what i do not like about this situation is this:
unloaded OC of a long gun is legal in california, correct? then why is he being followed by police for doing something that is legal? seems like a waste of man power and tax dollars to me...

[mjones]

Sorry C3, I'll have to call BS. your situation in CA is no politically different than any other state in the union. who would have thought that 17 years ago that CC would become the form of carry. who would have thought that OK would have gotten OC. who would have thought that Alaska, Vermont and AZ would have become constitutional carry.that DC and Chicago would have had the supreme court rule against them in favor of the 2nd A.
you may be right there is a bastion of fruit loops out there, but there is also a vast part of the state that are right thinking, that needs just to convince the ones that don't think about their rights as much.

BTW, there are more and more thinking about their rights everyday it just takes some push and activism that works

Unfortunately, the gun rights climate in CA has absolutely nothing in common with Alaska, Vermont or Arizona. That alone disproves your assertion that, "CA is no politically different than any other state in the union." If you can't see the difference, quite frankly you probably shouldn't voice an opinion on the matter.

DC and Chicago are much better comparisons for the political climate in California. In essence we (gun rights supporters) are completely overrun at every avenue of our state legislature, executive & judicial branches. Even at the federal judicial level in CA 95% of the districts are unfriendly territory.

We are having great success using the judiciary strategically to achieve our goals. 99% of CN's problem are not his goals, its the methods/time/place/manner in which he is attempting to achieve them. Re achieving our lost Gun Rights in CA is not an emotional game; its carefully refined strategy...

[Ca Patriot]

I salute those working to improve gun rights in CA but as some of previously opined, it will probably take at least 5 - 8 years before residents MIGHT get some rights restored.

For me personally, I just decided to move to another state where it took me 14 hours of driving to attain full consitutional 2A rights.

[Save Our State]

The only way California can be turned back towards liberty is to change the nature of the constituency that keeps voting anti-gun blockheads into office or pursue a 2A reset the likes of which have not been seen since a little kerfuffle on Lexington Green..

A kerfuffle?

I think this forum needs an Alexander Haig emoticon for this one

[ConditionThree]

Sorry C3, I'll have to call BS. your situation in CA is no politically different than any other state in the union. who would have thought that 17 years ago that CC would become the form of carry. who would have thought that OK would have gotten OC. who would have thought that Alaska, Vermont and AZ would have become constitutional carry.that DC and Chicago would have had the supreme court rule against them in favor of the 2nd A.
you may be right there is a bastion of fruit loops out there, but there is also a vast part of the state that are right thinking, that needs just to convince the ones that don't think about their rights as much.

BTW, there are more and more thinking about their rights everyday it just takes some push and activism that works

You are asserting that Alaska, Vermont, and Arizona share the same political topography with California? If that is the case, why arent there outsiders recommending to residents of Alaska, Vermont, and Arizona to move out of state to seek freedom elsewhere? Many Californians have abandoned their home state and shirked their duty of defending the Constitution where they lived for 'easy' liberty in less oppressive digs.

[sudden valley gunner]

My personal opinion is that he made a tactical error. In cases like this, its desirable to get yourself arrested UNLAWFULLY. i.e. arrested for breach of peace when you aren't actually breaking any laws.

By going into that park, he actually broke the law. That was a mistake.

Not saying what Nichols did is right or wrong, but Rosa Parks 'broke the law'.

[papa bear]

OK Mjones, YOU are correct. the situation in California is hopeless. YOU[B][/B]should just give up and learn to live with it. it is obvious that YOU can not change anything there.

there is no other state in the Union that has as much as the oppression, that YOU suffer from in California. i mean since you have the nation's capital right there beside you with all the Anti's just hoping to take your 2ndArights away from YOU. oh, sorry that is the state of Virginia where a lot of progress has been made. but, also since YOU have suffered such shootings as the VT shooting, the Gifford, and the Zimmerman shooting. whoops, sorry again those happened in other states also

but like You said it is time to shade a little tear and shut off the lights in California

[Felid`Maximus]

Not saying what Nichols did is right or wrong, but Rosa Parks 'broke the law'.

I believe the oppressive gun laws of California and its localities are immoral, and therefore, whether he intentionally violated the law or not, he did no wrong by carrying to the park.

As to whether his trial will result in positive change or merely provide the government an avenue of expressing its injustice, I cannot say.

[Robin47]

I believe the oppressive gun laws of California and its localities are immoral, and therefore, whether he intentionally violated the law or not, he did no wrong by carrying to the park.

As to whether his trial will result in positive change or merely provide the government an avenue of expressing its injustice, I cannot say.

I agree FM, I do think Leo's are suppose to protect our property, and person not take it away.
Are my shoes, not tied correctly ? Maybe they can also take them ?

The law in that park WAS Illegal, IF there is a Biil of Rights.

If I was Nickols, I would file a theft charge on the Leo, who took my property
and all the Leo's who were involved in it.
First of all "No due process" had taken place, in order to relieve him of his property.
And no just compensation was given either.
The point being, Its still " theft under color of law" !
There must be an end to this, and it starts by filing a counter charge against those
who do these things.
Go and file in a federal court !

The Leo or leo's who take property, have breech-ed there Oath, and trust to "We The People "
who hire them.
By braking there oath, they have lost the trust of the people and have an are committing a Felony
by taking Public monies under faults pretenses.
So yes if going about this the right way, Legal laws or not, I think Nickles would have a good chance
to change some things for the better.
We need to quit this "In-fighting", and start Praying Mr. Nickols is successful in his fight for freedom.
Just because a law is passed, don't make it a legal law.
It comes down to those who Enforce the laws are "They legal" ?
It also comes down in court and a jury trial, as to which law IS the law, and let the jury decide.
That's "We the People", and our most powerful tool & vote-at trial !

Anyway good luck to Nickols ! Robin47

[Ca Patriot]

Is Nichols on this board ? I remember he used to be on Cal Guns awhile back but they werent very friendly to him over there.

[ConditionThree]

Not saying what Nichols did is right or wrong, but Rosa Parks 'broke the law'.

Rosa Parks had the support of the NAACP and was selected from two others as their 'test case'. You see, they knew that a middle-aged married woman was better than an unwed mother-to-be. Her actions sparked a boycott which had a measurable impact on the bus companies bottom line and actually changed things. Blacks are no longer asked to sit in the back of the bus.

Charles Nichols on the other hand, is a doughy, middle-aged, caucasian male, that has alienated nearly every effective 2A group by his actions or his inability to 'play nice with others'- who carries a firearm for no other obvious practical reason than to seek the attention of media and police under pretences that his very public 'hari cari' will advance California gun rights in Federal court. His actions have driven himself and his supporters further from the center of reasonable gun owners, and threatens to aleviate every California gun owner of any public display of firearms outside +/-116 narrow exceptions.

So, I can see where you might mistake one for the other. In opposite-land.

I believe the oppressive gun laws of California and its localities are immoral, and therefore, whether he intentionally violated the law or not, he did no wrong by carrying to the park.

As to whether his trial will result in positive change or merely provide the government an avenue of expressing its injustice, I cannot say.

I would say that based on judicial, historical and empirical data, the results are predictable. Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. I believe this legislative session will result in the sequel to AB144.

Is Nichols on this board ? I remember he used to be on Cal Guns awhile back but they werent very friendly to him over there.

Nichols was banned from this forum more than a month ago for his charming candor and affability. Guess what that means in opposite-land?

[sudden valley gunner]

Rosa Parks had the support of the NAACP and was selected from two others as their 'test case'. You see, they knew that a middle-aged married woman was better than an unwed mother-to-be. Her actions sparked a boycott which had a measurable impact on the bus companies bottom line and actually changed things. Blacks are no longer asked to sit in the back of the bus.

Charles Nichols on the other hand, is a doughy, middle-aged, caucasian male, that has alienated nearly every effective 2A group by his actions or his inability to 'play nice with others'- who carries a firearm for no other obvious practical reason than to seek the attention of media and police under pretences that his very public 'hari cari' will advance California gun rights in Federal court. His actions have driven himself and his supporters further from the center of reasonable gun owners, and threatens to aleviate every California gun owner of any public display of firearms outside +/-116 narrow exceptions.

So, I can see where you might mistake one for the other. In opposite-land.




I would say that based on judicial, historical and empirical data, the results are predictable. Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. I believe this legislative session will result in the sequel to AB144.



Nichols was banned from this forum more than a month ago for his charming candor and affability. Guess what that means in opposite-land?

What is this "opposite" land and what does it have to do with my post?

Maybe take another look at my post. I didn't say anything positive about Nichols there did I? I don't care about Nichols being kicked off the board or not, I didn't pay attention to that and I am not bringing attention to that now.

So only older black ladies can stand up and break unconstitutional laws? We as free people have to wait to be "saved" by special interest groups and politicians and judges?

Rosa Parks case was chosen , this did not mean she was chosen to go break the law, she did this all on her own. . SlowfiveOh did a great job of destroying this ridiculous insinuation and history revision that she was choosen to break the law. So besides if she was it doesn't change the truthfulness and the intent of my statement

I give you another take on the whole "witness" court cases too that is getting misrepresented (not by you), they were going to preach regardless of what the law said, they didn't put forth test cases they just did what they felt was right and won in court. And even if they lost in court they would have kept doing it. Because they feel that strongly about their religion and their mission.

To me it's nice to know that some feel the same about other fundamental rights. Are you willing to go to jail for your rights for what you believe in? I know some who try to be leaders in the gun world then complain about how difficult it would make their life to OC, so they CC. And that is in a free state like Washington!

In this post I am not advocating breaking the law.

[ConditionThree]

What is this "opposite" land and what does it have to do with my post?

Maybe take another look at my post. I didn't say anything positive about Nichols there did I? I don't care about Nichols being kicked off the board or not, I didn't pay attention to that and I am not bringing attention to that now.

So only older black ladies can stand up and break unconstitutional laws? We as free people have to wait to be "saved" by special interest groups and politicians and judges?

Rosa Parks case was chosen , this did not mean she was chosen to go break the law, she did this all on her own. . SlowfiveOh did a great job of destroying this ridiculous insinuation and history revision that she was choosen to break the law. So besides if she was it doesn't change the truthfulness and the intent of my statement

I give you another take on the whole "witness" court cases too that is getting misrepresented (not by you), they were going to preach regardless of what the law said, they didn't put forth test cases they just did what they felt was right and won in court. And even if they lost in court they would have kept doing it. Because they feel that strongly about their religion and their mission.

To me it's nice to know that some feel the same about other fundamental rights. Are you willing to go to jail for your rights for what you believe in? I know some who try to be leaders in the gun world then complain about how difficult it would make their life to OC, so they CC. And that is in a free state like Washington!

In this post I am not advocating breaking the law.

Nichols≠Parks. You even state so in your above post by saying that she did this 'on her own', not as part of a strategy to win back rights. Nichols on the other hand, is flinging himself at a windmill, trying to grind out vindication in a haphazard and ill executed strategy based on half-known understanding of the application of law. By putting Nichols in the same sentence as Parks is giving him too much credit. And by continuing to add to this thread, we are certainly giving him more attention than he is due.

I am willing to go to jail for the advancement of the right to keep and bear arms, but will not do so for futile and unproductive purposes. And certainly not at the risk of undoing the efforts of those attempting to painstakingly restore liberty in our hostile environment.

[sudden valley gunner]

Nichols≠Parks. You even state so in your above post by saying that she did this 'on her own', not as part of a strategy to win back rights. Nichols on the other hand, is flinging himself at a windmill, trying to grind out vindication in a haphazard and ill executed strategy based on half-known understanding of the application of law. By putting Nichols in the same sentence as Parks is giving him too much credit. And by continuing to add to this thread, we are certainly giving him more attention than he is due.

I am willing to go to jail for the advancement of the right to keep and bear arms, but will not do so for futile and unproductive purposes. And certainly not at the risk of undoing the efforts of those attempting to painstakingly restore liberty in our hostile environment.

That is why I qualified my post to specifically not make it about Nichols you have to take it into context it was a reply to someone else's post, and a statement about unconstitutional laws not really about Nichols.

As for your last sentence, research the brought up Jehovah Witnesses cases and then go beyond the "cases" , they didn't stop preaching or practicing their faith, because it might set a bad precedent. What is needed is a strong public stance that we as humans will not give up are rights. I am not going to trust my fundamental human rights to an organization, to the courts or to government. But hold no ill will towards those who want to give their support to them and their strategies, and at times will choose to support specific causes I support from them.

[WalkingWolf]

Come on people it's California~~need I say more?

[ConditionThree]

Come on people it's California~~need I say more?

Yes. You will need to explain exactly what you mean, because none of us have any idea what you are infering.

[WalkingWolf]

Yes. You will need to explain exactly what you mean, because none of us have any idea what you are infering.

We affectionately refer to CA as the 'Land of Fruits and Nuts' or the 'Union of Californian Socialist Republic' or the 'Left Coast'

[Grapeshot]

Come on people it's California~~need I say more?

Yes. You will need to explain exactly what you mean, because none of us have any idea what you are infering.

No need to pick and snipe at each other. The good people of California have enough to do w/o anyone from OCDO attacking them.

When you can identify who your friends are, you'll know who the enemy is. Neutrals don't need to be caught in the middle - they should be educated.

No more insults or derogatory comments, please.

Good natured ribbing is a bond between brothers and acceptable.

[WalkingWolf]

Just a little bit of east coast/west coast toasting~sorry if I hurt feelings. But from the political environment in CA I don't see a chance of a change. Unless it comes from SCOTUS. I honestly wish the good folks of CA had their rights, but I wish the same for those good folks in Illinois. At least some people though few can get a carry permit in CA.

[ConditionThree]

No more insults or derogatory comments, please.

And thus closes an epic opportunity for someone who has never been to the Carolinas to make broad sweeping generalizations about their populace.

;-)

[cato]

Taped his ammo to his shotgun? Gets his gun taken as evidence of a park ordinance violation? What law did he think he was challenging? Is this for a whole new lawsuit?

A muni code conviction needs to make it all the way through the state criminal courts including the CA Supreme Court before a lateral to SCOTUS is even possible. This does nothing for his poorly planned and thrown out federal case.

This only helps the legislature get press to pass a uoc long gun ban and possibly create bad State case law regarding 'sensitive places'. Thankfully he does not appear to even have the financial ability to get to appeals.