California Open Carry Lawsuit - December 2013 Update

BrianB · Dec 30, 2013

California Right To Carry said:
Obviously, you have never read the US Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008). Hint, look at the section of Heller where the Court joined the two halves of the Second Amendment and defined what "bear arms" means.

Your "bikini/nudist" scenario is moronic. Please do not spam my posts.

Some people ask questions as a way of stating the other person is wrong. Some people ask questions because they are genuinely interested in the answer. My purpose was the latter. When I said "I'd be interested to know your reasoning behind this statement -- at least as applied to handguns" it was a genuine desire to know your reasoning. Some people like to have intellectual discussions and learn from seeing other people's points of view. You on the other hand seem to be a little too touchy for such a conversation -- either that or you're so used to being attacked that you assume the worst when dealing with people.

In any event, best of luck with your lawsuit.

BB62 · Dec 30, 2013

BrianB said:
Some people ask questions as a way of stating the other person is wrong. Some people ask questions because they are genuinely interested in the answer. My purpose was the latter. When I said "I'd be interested to know your reasoning behind this statement -- at least as applied to handguns" it was a genuine desire to know your reasoning. Some people like to have intellectual discussions and learn from seeing other people's points of view. You on the other hand seem to be a little too touchy for such a conversation -- either that or you're so used to being attacked that you assume the worst when dealing with people...

(my underline)

I agree.

Charles: Although I feel that Brian's question was wacky/strange/hard to understand/stupid, I believe it would serve what I understand to be your interest here to be less confrontational and more accommodating with your responses unless and until you know the "players" much better. IMHO, your approach is not one which will build understanding and support, but rather one which serves to validate the assertions of various critics who have posted about you here and elsewhere.

Your choice.

California Right To Carry · Dec 30, 2013

BB62 said:
(my underline)

I agree.

Charles: Although I feel that Brian's question was wacky/strange/hard to understand/stupid, I believe it would serve what I understand to be your interest here to be less confrontational and more accommodating with your responses unless and until you know the "players" much better. IMHO, your approach is not one which will build understanding and support, but rather one which serves to validate the assertions of various critics who have posted about you here and elsewhere.

Your choice.

You seem to forget that I have been here before. This forum was a nest of Open Carry opponents, many of whom I recognized from CalGuns which everyone should know by now has a concealed carry lawsuit pending before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that California can ban Open Carry if it wants to.

I have no interest in currying favor with my critics. Unlike them, I am the only person in this country with a Federal lawsuit trying to overturn bans on Open Carry. And unlike them and unlike the so called gun-rights groups they support (NRA, CRPA, SAF, and CalGuns to name a few) I am not trying to keep California's Open Carry bans in place.

The only opinions that matter to me are the Federal Court opinions published in my Open Carry lawsuit.

Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry

BrianB · Dec 31, 2013

California Right To Carry said:
You seem to forget that I have been here before. This forum was a nest of Open Carry opponents, many of whom I recognized from CalGuns which everyone should know by now has a concealed carry lawsuit pending before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that California can ban Open Carry if it wants to.

I have no interest in currying favor with my critics. Unlike them, I am the only person in this country with a Federal lawsuit trying to overturn bans on Open Carry. And unlike them and unlike the so called gun-rights groups they support (NRA, CRPA, SAF, and CalGuns to name a few) I am not trying to keep California's Open Carry bans in place.

I don't know if any of the above was meant to describe me. In case it was, I'm by no means an open carry opponent, nor am I a critic of your lawsuit. I think universal unlicensed open carry should be the law of the land so that anybody may travel to any state and know at least one mode of carry that will be lawful no matter which state line they happen to cross. We do not have general open carry in Florida and I support Florida Carry who is pushing to change that (and does other great work in this state).

I made this statement:

If a state has a public policy reason to prohibit open carry (such as Florida's concern about its impact upon tourism) then I think they may constitutionally prohibit open carry so long as they allow unlicensed concealed carry. Put simply the state may prohibit one or the other, but not both. There must be a manner of carrying a readily accessible, loaded firearm, for immediate use, without a license in order to avoid "infringing" the right (in my opinion).

[Emphasis added]

You disagreed with my statement. I attempted to elicit your reasoning and you got twisted up about it. I offered a couple "extreme" cases (beach goers and nudists) to argue against my own position to open the dialog and invite discussion of other (less ridiculous) ways that allowing unlicensed concealed carry but prohibiting open carry still infringes the right "to bear".

If you don't want to share your reasoning with others, or if you feel we should be able to divine it from your court filings, or reading Heller, or whatever, then that's your prerogative.

Baked on Grease · Dec 31, 2013

BrianB said:
I don't know if any of the above was meant to describe me. In case it was, I'm by no means an open carry opponent, nor am I a critic of your lawsuit. I think universal unlicensed open carry should be the law of the land so that anybody may travel to any state and know at least one mode of carry that will be lawful no matter which state line they happen to cross. We do not have general open carry in Florida and I support Florida Carry who is pushing to change that (and does other great work in this state).

I made this statement:
[Emphasis added]

You disagreed with my statement. I attempted to elicit your reasoning and you got twisted up about it. I offered a couple "extreme" cases (beach goers and nudists) to argue against my own position to open the dialog and invite discussion of other (less ridiculous) ways that allowing unlicensed concealed carry but prohibiting open carry still infringes the right "to bear".

If you don't want to share your reasoning with others, or if you feel we should be able to divine it from your court filings, or reading Heller, or whatever, then that's your prerogative.

My explanation is that since the 2A does not specify OC or CC, then ANY law that seeks to prohibit you from carrying in any manner is thus infringing.

Looked at another way... the 1A does not specify written or verbal speech as protected. .. what if they passed a law saying you must get a 'may issue license' in order to write anything in your state... but that unlicensed verbal speech ia still legal. Has your Right to free speech been infringed on?

Why are the two Amendments looked at so wildly different?

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

BrianB · Dec 31, 2013

Baked on Grease said:
My explanation is that since the 2A does not specify OC or CC, then ANY law that seeks to prohibit you from carrying in any manner is thus infringing.

Looked at another way... the 1A does not specify written or verbal speech as protected. .. what if they passed a law saying you must get a 'may issue license' in order to write anything in your state... but that unlicensed verbal speech ia still legal. Has your Right to free speech been infringed on?

See there? An intelligent counter to my position. I like it. I think there may be some difference between "shall make no law" (1A) and "shall not be infringed" (2A), but I have no idea where that line would be.

I don't want to derail the OP's topic any further than has already happened, but I thank you for your reasoned post. You present a very simple and effective argument - exactly what I was looking for.

Baked on Grease · Dec 31, 2013

BrianB said:
See there? An intelligent counter to my position. I like it. I think there may be some difference between "shall make no law" (1A) and "shall not be infringed" (2A), but I have no idea where that line would be.

I don't want to derail the OP's topic any further than has already happened, but I thank you for your reasoned post. You present a very simple and effective argument - exactly what I was looking for.

One could argue that Shall make no law only tells congress it cant make a law... but Shall not be infringed puts an imperative on govt to ensure your RKBA isnt infringed ever by anyone.... including policies by bureaucracies and agencies which aren't law

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

BB62 · Dec 31, 2013

California Right To Carry said:
You seem to forget that I have been here before...

Just so we're clear, Charles, I don't know you from a hole in the wall, and have no knowledge of your past except what I've read in the past week or so since you've become a member under what I suppose is a new handle.

I'm learning a lot about your present demeanor, though, and it validates what I've read of your past.

WCrawford · Jan 24, 2014

BB62 said:
Just so we're clear, Charles, I don't know you from a hole in the wall, and have no knowledge of your past except what I've read in the past week or so since you've become a member under what I suppose is a new handle.

I'm learning a lot about your present demeanor, though, and it validates what I've read of your past.

Charles' present demeanor is completely justified and restrained given his past treatment by those who persecute those who have left the "Calguns plantation".

eye95 · Jan 24, 2014

No. It is not. He has made unsubstantiated accusations against other gun groups and acts as if his "organization" is the only one in the world that is doing things right!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

NMOCr · Jan 24, 2014

eye95 said:
No. It is not. He has made unsubstantiated accusations against other gun groups and acts as if his "organization" is the only one in the world that is doing things right!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Considering the fact that SAF and NRA have been pushing CCW in the courts (which has repeatedly ruled against them over the past 200 years of court cases), while at the same time saying that OC can be banned (in court briefs), and the fact that his (Mr. Nichols) lawsuit is 100% about lawful open carry, you can quickly see that Mr Nichols is a direct threat to them in their own unrealistic lawsuits for CCW's.

The fact is that CCW is seen by the courts as an unlawful action, which can be heavily regulated, and licensed, while OC has been considered repeatedly by courts on almost very court level to be the prefered "mode" of carry.

While I believe that the courts are wrong on CCW, that is nevertheless what we have to realize is that there is less than 1% chance of them changing their minds on this, and suddenly finding that CCW is a "constitutional right". That is right now a lost lawsuit waiting to happen everytime SAF and NRA tries to throw OC under the bus for their lawsuits (resulting in both being banned).

sudden valley gunner · Jan 26, 2014

NMOCr said:
Considering the fact that SAF and NRA have been pushing CCW in the courts (which has repeatedly ruled against them over the past 200 years of court cases), while at the same time saying that OC can be banned (in court briefs), and the fact that his (Mr. Nichols) lawsuit is 100% about lawful open carry, you can quickly see that Mr Nichols is a direct threat to them in their own unrealistic lawsuits for CCW's.

The fact is that CCW is seen by the courts as an unlawful action, which can be heavily regulated, and licensed, while OC has been considered repeatedly by courts on almost very court level to be the prefered "mode" of carry.

While I believe that the courts are wrong on CCW, that is nevertheless what we have to realize is that there is less than 1% chance of them changing their minds on this, and suddenly finding that CCW is a "constitutional right". That is right now a lost lawsuit waiting to happen everytime SAF and NRA tries to throw OC under the bus for their lawsuits (resulting in both being banned).

200 years? What about state vs. nunn?

I agree with you thought they keep arguing the wrong issue. They want the permission slips.

BB62 · Feb 3, 2014

WCrawford said:
Charles' present demeanor is completely justified and restrained given his past treatment by those who persecute those who have left the "Calguns plantation".

Of which I am not, and I venture to say, those whom he is fencing with here, are not either.

He came on here with an opportunity to address and seek support from many who don't know him or his past, and who, I speculate, would be willing to judge him on his current actions/demeanor - and he has squandered the opportunity IMHO.

ConditionThree · Feb 5, 2014

BB62 said:
Of which I am not, and I venture to say, those whom he is fencing with here, are not either.

He came on here with an opportunity to address and seek support from many who don't know him or his past, and who, I speculate, would be willing to judge him on his current actions/demeanor - and he has squandered the opportunity IMHO.

^ This. Repeatedly. And wholly unrepentant, I might add.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?119451-Setting-the-Record-Straight

XDUser · Feb 7, 2014

ConditionThree said:
^ This. Repeatedly. And wholly unrepentant, I might add.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?119451-Setting-the-Record-Straight

As if people don't see through the passive aggressive posts.
Attempting to suck up to everyone else will only get you so far, people are not stupid and see through that ****.
I think OP can come across like a jerk but I agree with his arguments and see no obvious flaw in any of his statements so far.
Correct me if I am wrong and am just missing something, as I have not lived in the commifornia cesspool in over a decade now, yet I recognize the cites he listed.

/backtolurking

sudden valley gunner · Feb 8, 2014

XDUser said:
As if people don't see through the passive aggressive posts.
Attempting to suck up to everyone else will only get you so far, people are not stupid and see through that ****.
I think OP can come across like a jerk but I agree with his arguments and see no obvious flaw in any of his statements so far.
Correct me if I am wrong and am just missing something, as I have not lived in the commifornia cesspool in over a decade now, yet I recognize the cites he listed.

/backtolurking

+1

The OP was treated like a jerk and which added to his already bad demeanor, even had mods alleging he was "immoral".

Gray Peterson · Feb 18, 2014

Peruta v. County of San Diego was released today, which nearly entirely annihilated Mr. Nichols arguments.

I was not responsible for banning Mr. Nichols from the forum. That decision was solely made by John Pierce, who is the owner/admin of OCDO.

If Mr. Nichols believes I made libelous statements, he can feel free to come to Washington State and file a libel case against me, though he should be careful of SLAPPbacks. The punitive damages are quite severe.

Support of a legal case doesn't mean exemption from the forum rules, either. Once a member is banned, a ban cannot be "released" merely by creating a new account.

Until John gets back from whatever he's doing, this thread is hereby closed until he can review the situation, and determined what will be done to members who have broken the OCDO forum rules repeatedly in this thread.

California Open Carry Lawsuit - December 2013 Update

BrianB

Regular Member

BB62

Accomplished Advocate

California Right To Carry

Regular Member

BrianB

Regular Member

Baked on Grease

Regular Member

BrianB

Regular Member

Baked on Grease

Regular Member

BB62

Accomplished Advocate

WCrawford

Regular Member

eye95

Well-known member

NMOCr

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

BB62

Accomplished Advocate

ConditionThree

State Pioneer

XDUser

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator