California Right To Carry
Regular Member
Before the usual trolls from CalGuns.nuts weigh in, a reminder - John Pierce has endorsed my lawsuit -> http://www.opencarry.org/?p=615
My district court case is fully briefed. I expect a decision from the district court in January.
On November 18, 2013 the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the "historical analysis" framework I advocated and rejected the 2nd Circuit Decastro "substantial burden" test advocated by California Attorney General Harris when it published its decision in US v. Chovan. Significantly, the relevant time period in the 9th Circuit under Chovan for conducting that historical analysis is the time of ratification of the Second Amendment (1791). That won't save the concealed carry lawsuits currently pending in the 9th CCA because the US Supreme Court in Heller listed concealed carry as one of the "presumptively lawful" restrictions on the Second Amendment and the concealed carry lawsuits all argued that Heller gives them a right to carry concealed.
Unlike the 9th CCA concealed carry lawsuits (Richards, Peruta & Baker, McKay, etc) I have always argued that the curtilage of one's home is one's home under Heller. None of the concealed carry lawsuits have an "in home" nexus.
AG Harris also gave me an "outside the home" nexus pursuant to US v. Chovan, when she argued that California's Open Carry bans are mitigated by various exemptions and exceptions that apply outside of one's home.
Unlike the 9th CCA concealed carry lawsuits, I also raised a "suspect classification" challenge to the 1967 ban on Loaded Open Carry the solve motivation of which was to disarm minorities. Unable to refute my claim, AG Harris argues that amending the law in 2000 to add a felony provision (unregistered, loaded handgun) negates the racist intent of the California legislature. This is, of course, analogous to adding a hobbling provision to a runaway slave statute which previously limited the punishment of runaway slaves to whipping.
The concealed carry lawsuits also failed to raise a suspect classification allegation (race) even though they could have as it is well documented that the intent of the 1923 concealed carry legislation was to disarm Latinos and Chinese (Blacks were an insignificant minority in California in 1923).
One should ask if the purpose of their concealed carry litigation was to raise money from the suckers who opened their wallets to them or, are the attorneys merely incompetent?
I took a lot of criticism from Open Carry opponents, many of them who post here including a not so thinly veiled death threat from a senior member of CalGuns.nuts. I also drew two Federal judges (magistrate and district court) openly hostile to the Second Amendment who attempted to argue the AG's case for her and who threw one obstacle after another in front of me in the hope that I would abandon my lawsuit.
To show that the gods have a sense of humor, the state's attorney representing AG Harris in my Open Carry lawsuit is the same attorney representing AG Harris in a challenge to California's 10 day waiting period laws. He made the same legal arguments in that case as he did in mine. On December 9th, 2013 Senior District Court Judge Ishii from the Eastern District of California torpedoed AG Harris' arguments in denying her motion for summary judgment. Judge Ishii made many of the same legal arguments in denying her motion that I have been making these past two years in my Open Carry lawsuit.
I never needed the Chovan analysis to win my case. I framed my lawsuit from the beginning to prevail even if there were no Second Amendment. Chovan was icing on the cake. In addition to my Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, AG Harris in her own words said that the essence of the three laws I am challenging are bans. "Bans" do not require a court to decide which level of judicial scrutiny is appropriate. As in Heller and McDonald they are unconstitutional regardless of the level of judicial scrutiny.
Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry
"[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.
My district court case is fully briefed. I expect a decision from the district court in January.
On November 18, 2013 the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the "historical analysis" framework I advocated and rejected the 2nd Circuit Decastro "substantial burden" test advocated by California Attorney General Harris when it published its decision in US v. Chovan. Significantly, the relevant time period in the 9th Circuit under Chovan for conducting that historical analysis is the time of ratification of the Second Amendment (1791). That won't save the concealed carry lawsuits currently pending in the 9th CCA because the US Supreme Court in Heller listed concealed carry as one of the "presumptively lawful" restrictions on the Second Amendment and the concealed carry lawsuits all argued that Heller gives them a right to carry concealed.
Unlike the 9th CCA concealed carry lawsuits (Richards, Peruta & Baker, McKay, etc) I have always argued that the curtilage of one's home is one's home under Heller. None of the concealed carry lawsuits have an "in home" nexus.
AG Harris also gave me an "outside the home" nexus pursuant to US v. Chovan, when she argued that California's Open Carry bans are mitigated by various exemptions and exceptions that apply outside of one's home.
Unlike the 9th CCA concealed carry lawsuits, I also raised a "suspect classification" challenge to the 1967 ban on Loaded Open Carry the solve motivation of which was to disarm minorities. Unable to refute my claim, AG Harris argues that amending the law in 2000 to add a felony provision (unregistered, loaded handgun) negates the racist intent of the California legislature. This is, of course, analogous to adding a hobbling provision to a runaway slave statute which previously limited the punishment of runaway slaves to whipping.
The concealed carry lawsuits also failed to raise a suspect classification allegation (race) even though they could have as it is well documented that the intent of the 1923 concealed carry legislation was to disarm Latinos and Chinese (Blacks were an insignificant minority in California in 1923).
One should ask if the purpose of their concealed carry litigation was to raise money from the suckers who opened their wallets to them or, are the attorneys merely incompetent?
I took a lot of criticism from Open Carry opponents, many of them who post here including a not so thinly veiled death threat from a senior member of CalGuns.nuts. I also drew two Federal judges (magistrate and district court) openly hostile to the Second Amendment who attempted to argue the AG's case for her and who threw one obstacle after another in front of me in the hope that I would abandon my lawsuit.
To show that the gods have a sense of humor, the state's attorney representing AG Harris in my Open Carry lawsuit is the same attorney representing AG Harris in a challenge to California's 10 day waiting period laws. He made the same legal arguments in that case as he did in mine. On December 9th, 2013 Senior District Court Judge Ishii from the Eastern District of California torpedoed AG Harris' arguments in denying her motion for summary judgment. Judge Ishii made many of the same legal arguments in denying her motion that I have been making these past two years in my Open Carry lawsuit.
I never needed the Chovan analysis to win my case. I framed my lawsuit from the beginning to prevail even if there were no Second Amendment. Chovan was icing on the cake. In addition to my Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, AG Harris in her own words said that the essence of the three laws I am challenging are bans. "Bans" do not require a court to decide which level of judicial scrutiny is appropriate. As in Heller and McDonald they are unconstitutional regardless of the level of judicial scrutiny.
Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry
"[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.