Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Scheduling Order for Nichols v. Brown Open Carry lawsuit

  1. #1
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463

    Thumbs up Scheduling Order for Nichols v. Brown Open Carry lawsuit

    I've deleted my original post of 6-7-2014 because my appeal was stayed and the scheduling order was vacated. Here is where my case now stands as of April 13, 2015

    Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 13, 2015 - This is funny. Appellees Governor Brown and Attorney General Harris filed an unopposed motion to stay my appeal until June 30, 2014. A motion which I did not oppose for the reason given below in the April 9, 2015 update. Instead, the court let me decide when I want to terminate the stay by filing my Appellate opening brief. Unfortunately, the Appellees have until September 14, 2015 to file their answering brief and therefore I am going to choose door number two – file a status report and an appropriate motion just before August 14, 2015. My motion will be for summary reversal which, if successful, will result in an Open Carry win far faster than the usual routes. Either way, no more stays of my appeal after this (barring Peruta being granted cert by SCOTUS in which case every 2A case in this Circuit will be stayed).

    Docket:
    04/13/2015 13 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LBS): Appellant’s unopposed motion to stay appellate proceedings pending disposition of two en banc cases, Peruta v. County of San Diego, case no. 10-56791, and Richards v. Prieto, case no. 11-16255, is granted. This case is stayed until August 14, 2015. On or before the expiration of the stay, appellant shall file the opening brief or file a status report and an appropriate motion. If appellant files the opening brief, the answering brief will be due September The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. The filing of the opening brief or failure to file a status report shall terminate the stay. [9493503] (SM) [Entered: 04/13/2015 03:19 PM]
    Last edited by California Right To Carry; 04-14-2015 at 09:31 PM. Reason: New schedule

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I don't need a judge's permission anymore than I need a member of the legislature ...

    Keep us posted ...

  3. #3
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I don't need a judge's permission anymore than I need a member of the legislature ...

    Keep us posted ...
    do you have any case law to support you sig line regarding PC 602? I'd be most interested.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    do you have any case law to support you sig line regarding PC 602? I'd be most interested.
    http://scholar.google.com/

    I keep up with my state's case law on this issue ... google scholar is a decent place to start .. post back w/results

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    do you have any case law to support you sig line regarding PC 602? I'd be most interested.
    I respect your right to follow the law ? Cato, or Laws ? But which one IS the law ? 2-A or a statue ?
    Anyway one might look up the part of the 1 st amendment " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
    of religion, or the FREE exercise thereof; " That statement says Congress can't pass a law against your God given duty
    "Luke 22:36" That's Jesus saying you are to carry arms !
    So it truly is a God given right, to be armed and to carry them daily.

    I don't think PC 602 is in reality, stronger then ones God given right.
    However you are right cato in the fact that there are many "Antichrist laws" already on the books,
    and this is why we are losing our freedom, you could say a sign of our times !
    Sad but true

    Robin47

  6. #6
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Key word congress....

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Key word congress....

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

    You do realize that means , the courts, the president and others were not to make any laws right?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Key word congress....

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Key word constitution....
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Key word constitution....
    +1 I'm not sure where he was going but it appeared he wasn't going in the right direction.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Regular Member Elm Creek Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    In the county.
    Posts
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Key word constitution....
    According to the Constitution, Congress makes laws. The President can't make laws. (Someone tell Barack Hussein Obama, please.) The Supreme Court cannot make laws.

    According to the Supreme Court in Heller vs. DC, and McDonald vs. Chicago, local and state governments can't ban entire classes of firearms.

    The 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a state (IL) must allow either concealed carry or open carry in Moore vs. Madigan.

    The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California counties cannot impose a "good reason" requirement for issuing concealed carry licenses since that violates the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
    "If the truth hurts, it should." - Dad

    " A year from now, ten, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more running. I aim to misbehave." - Malcolm Reynolds, Serenity

    "The cheaper the crook, the gaudier the patter." - Sam Spade, The Maltese Falcon

  11. #11
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by Elm Creek Smith View Post
    The 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a state (IL) must allow either concealed carry or open carry in Moore vs. Madigan.

    The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California counties cannot impose a "good reason" requirement for issuing concealed carry licenses since that violates the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
    Nope, Judge Posner said in Moore v. Madigan that Illinois could require firearms to be carried openly as per Heller. The Supreme Court in Heller did not say that a state must allow either concealed carry or open carry and so there is no way to interpret the 7th Circuit decision to say that Illinois could prohibit the carrying of long guns and require that handguns be carried concealed.

    The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said several contradictory things but ultimately the decision said that self-defense constitutes "good cause" and Sheriff Gore's policy of not accepting self-defense as good cause was unconstitutional.

    You might have noticed that Sheriff Gore has not changed his CCW policy, the case is not final and Peruta's own lawyer says the odds are two to one that he is going to lose.


    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    "[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.

    "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    Nope, Judge Posner said in Moore v. Madigan that Illinois could require firearms to be carried openly as per Heller. The Supreme Court in Heller did not say that a state must allow either concealed carry or open carry and so there is no way to interpret the 7th Circuit decision to say that Illinois could prohibit the carrying of long guns and require that handguns be carried concealed.

    The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said several contradictory things but ultimately the decision said that self-defense constitutes "good cause" and Sheriff Gore's policy of not accepting self-defense as good cause was unconstitutional.

    You might have noticed that Sheriff Gore has not changed his CCW policy, the case is not final and Peruta's own lawyer says the odds are two to one that he is going to lose.


    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    "[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.

    "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
    Here's one that should help in your fight.
    www.billofrightsinstitute.org

    I did a lot of research on it and "equal protection laws" so you should win the fight.
    Good luck ! Robin47

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by Robin47 View Post
    I respect your right to follow the law ? Cato, or Laws ? But which one IS the law ? 2-A or a statue ?
    Anyway one might look up the part of the 1 st amendment " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
    of religion, or the FREE exercise thereof; " That statement says Congress can't pass a law against your God given duty
    "Luke 22:36" That's Jesus saying you are to carry arms !
    So it truly is a God given right, to be armed and to carry them daily.

    I don't think PC 602 is in reality, stronger then ones God given right.
    However you are right cato in the fact that there are many "Antichrist laws" already on the books,
    and this is why we are losing our freedom, you could say a sign of our times !
    Sad but true

    Robin47
    Where's your sheriff on this?????

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    Where's your sheriff on this?????
    I Intend to find out, I moved and don't know this new Sheriff, but will find out !
    Most go along to get along, we will see !
    Robin47

  15. #15
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463

    Thumbs up Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 8, 2014

    Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 8, 2014 - California Attorney General Harris today filed her response to my opposition to her motion seeking a 90-180 day/indefinite stay of my appeal of the final judgment of the district court. You may recall that the district court cited one line of dicta from the Peruta decision which the district court inferred as a pleading barrier which created an insurmountable obstacle to my Second Amendment claim and dismissed my case with prejudice.

    In my opposition to her motion to stay my appeal, a motion in which she falsely claimed that Governor Brown was not a defendant in the Appeal, I reminded the court that inferior courts such as the district court and the appellate courts are forbidden from creating pleading barriers not found in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to which the US Supreme Court reminded the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals less than one month ago in Johnson v. City of Shelby. Neither did the Attorney General cite any rule or authority allowing a stay to be issued or justifying a stay this time around. Instead, she “argues” that somehow, in some undefined way, a decision in Peruta v. San Diego or Richards v. Prieto might have some impact on my case.

    Likewise, in her response today she cites no rule or authority in which a stay can be issued or in any way makes an argument justifying a stay. Crucially, she does not deny that the sole basis the district court judge gave for denying my Second Amendment challenge was in error. As much as the two judge majority in Peruta v. San Diego would like to preclude plaintiffs from arguing that we have a right to openly carry firearms in public for the purpose of self-defense, they are prohibited from doing so under both US Supreme Court and this Circuit’s own binding precedents.

    Also, I received an email from the NRA law firm representing Peruta informing me that they would once again be filing an Amicus Brief asking that my appeal be stayed pending a final resolution of Peruta. The NRA did this in my appeal of my preliminary injunction. After their motion was referred to the merits panel, which was months away from being selected, an assistant clerk granted their request to stay the appeal of my preliminary injunction. Fortunately, I can fight the NRA entering as an Amicus and can fight any stay the Court (or Clerk) might issue since this time around as I am not also having to fight a legal battle in the district court.

    I told Peruta’s lawyer that not only do I oppose their entering as an Amicus seeking a stay of my appeal, if they file their brief then they should be prepared for a long legal battle. There are several things I can do and one of those things is to file a motion for summary reversal of the district court decision.

    Before that, I will be filing a motion to file a sur-reply in opposition to Harris' motion for a stay.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  16. #16
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463

    Thumbs up See Original Post for Current Schedule

    I've edited the original post to reflect the current schedule.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •