Permit holder "badge"

ATM said:

This last post portrays an entirely different purpose than the reasoning you gave in the original post and would have generated an entirely different discussion.

Why did you choose to originally misrepresent your motivation or intended goal? The latter explanation seems far more reasonable than the former.

Click to expand...

My guess is because even though many people have zero understanding of it, sarcasm does still exist, even on the internet.

ATM said:

This last post portrays an entirely different purpose than the reasoning you gave in the original post and would have generated an entirely different discussion.

Why did you choose to originally misrepresent your motivation or intended goal? The latter explanation seems far more reasonable than the former.

Click to expand...

To all outside Connecticut:

You have to live in the State of Connecticut and deal with decisions of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to truly understand the reasoning behind my post.

In Connecticut, the law permits an individual with a valid permit to Carry OPENLY or CONCEALED, plain and simple.

Yet individuals are harassed, stopped, detained and arrested for doing exactly what the law permits.

The judges in our courts are in OPEN REBELLION against Heller and McDonald, and finding any way they can to protect rogue untrained members of law enforcement from civil exposure for their actions.

I hope this answers your question.

REST ASSURED, law enforcement will be more concerned about people LEGALLY wearing badges then they are about people carrying firearms with VALID PERMITS.

IF GOVERNMENT CAN MAKE SUCCESSFUL LEGAL ARGUMENTS THAT BADGES JUSTIFY OPEN CARRY, THEN THEY SHOULDN'T BITCH WHEN PRIVATE CITIZENS BEGIN TO WEAR THEM.

Edward Peruta said:

...I hope this answers your question.

Click to expand...

Not really, but I can understand and support your motive to wear the (otherwise ridiculous IMO) badge for the real purpose you further explained.

Perhaps the intended sarcasm of the OP was a bit of a local inside joke which I simply missed. Carry on!

Proof that Ed Peruta opposes Open Carry

Edward Peruta said:

I have been and am currently a major supporter and advocate of OPEN CARRY, and challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

Click to expand...

Ed, YOU are the lead plaintiff in Peruta v. San Diego which is a concealed carry case in which YOUR attorney argued that California has a constitutional right to ban Open Carry. YOUR attorney also "warned" the court of appeals that if you did not prevail in getting your California concealed carry permit that would entail overturning both the California law banning Loaded Open Carry as well as the overturning of California's Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995 which YOUR lawyer said would be "drastic." I, unlike you, think that both the California Loaded Open Carry ban and California's Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995 should be overturned. My lawsuit, which the NRA and your fellow plaintiff the California Rifle and Pistol Association opposes, seeks to overturn California's Open Carry bans which is a necessary first step to overturning much of the Gun Free School Zone law.

YOUR lawyer speaks for you. If he wasn't accurately representing your position then you had two options: 1) Fire him or 2) remove yourself from the case.

At this late stage of the litigation, door number 2 is the only option you have left. Fortunately, it is easy to do. All you have to do is to instruct YOUR attorney to inform the court of Appeals that you are no longer a plaintiff in the case and that the case should now be stylized as Laxson v. San Diego. It is a simple procedure, all it requires is a one paragraph letter to the Clerk of the Court. No motions, no briefs, no oral arguments. Just a simple letter.

After all, even YOUR attorney says that the odds are two to one that you are going to lose before the en banc panel. All that you will then have left is a futile concealed carry cert petition and we all know how eager the Supreme Court is to grant a concealed carry case. :lol:

For as long as you are a plaintiff in Peruta v. San Diego you, yourself, is the proof that you oppose Open Carry. YOUR lawsuit says that you oppose Open Carry and has said that you oppose Open Carry for years now.


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

"[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.

More inaccurate facts from Caifornia Right to Carry and Charles Nichols

Mr. Charles Nichols President
California Right to Carry,

You and your organization have published information that states in part: "Proof that Ed Peruta opposes Open Carry"

The word "PROOF" is a word that leads people to believe you have HARD FACTS to back up your claim that I oppose Open Carry.

What you and your organization posted in nothing more than an attempt to promote your case and your organization.

Given the fact that you and your organization previously submitting a misleading press release to www.thetruthaboutguns.com claiming that I park my 16 ton 40 Ft. Country Coach Motor Home at my sister's home in San Diego without checking your facts was the first HARD EVIDENCE that you don't know what you're talking about.

TWO FACTS:

I don't have a sister but do have a sister-in-law.

The driveway at her home is double wide and no more than 12 feet from the curb line to base of their home's garage door.

You also made inaccurate claims regarding my ability to obtain a CCW in San Diego County (as a part time resident), even though the issue was resolved in writing to my satisfaction between my attorneys and the County.

Now you again post inaccurate statements with a claim that somewhere in the text of your post, there is "PROOF" that I oppose Open Carry.

You have taken my complete and public opposition to "UNLOADED OPEN CARRY" as opposition to "OPEN CARRY".

I have ALWAYS supported OPEN CARRY where it is legal to do so, and believe that it is the most basic way to obtain the full effect of carrying a firearm for self defense.

Your desire to seek recognition for your law suit and possible support for your organization has in my opinion effected your moral compass.

My legal team and the organizations they advocate for, have provided me with excellent representation in my quest to acquire a CCW in California.

I don't have to worry about your misrepresentations and disinformation here in the Connecticut section because I have a very solid record and reputation on the topic of OPEN CARRY.

To say that I oppose OPEN CARRY is a total fabrication based at best on incorrect information and beliefs.

If you were to read and research the background of the Torrington and Wethersfield Police OPEN CARRY MEMOS in the beginning of this Connecticut Section, you would know that they began with an encounter I had with Torrington Police Lt. Mike Emanuel at a doughnut shop in an Exxon gas station while I was OPENLY carrying my holstered firearm.

So... If I may be so bold to ask, please do your homework or keep your fingers off the keyboard when attempting to explain MY CCW CASE or MY OPEN CARRY BELIEFS.

Edward Peruta said:

To all outside Connecticut:...

The judges in our courts are in OPEN REBELLIONagainst Heller and McDonald, and finding any way they can to protect rouge untrained members of law enforcement from civil exposure for their actions...

Click to expand...

You have RED untrained members of law enforcement up there?? Are they therefore "Redskins"? :uhoh: :uhoh:

Or do you just have garden variety "rogue" untrained LEOs?

Ed Peruta finally admits he Opposes Open Carry

Edward Peruta said:

I have ALWAYS supported OPEN CARRY where it is legal to do so...

Click to expand...

And there you have it folks, Ed Peruta engaging in a bit of Clintonesque double speak ("lying" for those of you under a certain age). Ed Peruta "supports" Open Carry except where Ed Peruta opposes Open Carry such as in California.

I had previously posted links to his case wherein Ed Peruta's lawyer argued that states can ban Open Carry. Here they are are again:

A link to all of the Peruta v. San Diego case files from the website of Peruta's lawyer Chuck Michel -> http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/perutavsandiego/

A link to Ed Peruta's Appellate Opening Brief at the same website -> http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-Opening-Brief.pdf

When reading the briefs, and you should read at least the Appellate Opening Brief, PC 12031 refers to the penal code section of California's Loaded Open Carry ban and PC 626.9 refers to California's Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995, both of which the briefs argue to uphold.

The proof is conclusive to anyone with a 7th grade reading vocabulary. Ed Peruta opposes Open Carry. Ed Peruta supports Gun Free School Zones.

What an astonishing lack of credibility and responsibility...

Charles, you do yourself, your members and the entire community a great disservice with your continual personal attacks.

Unfortunately, you will fit right in here with a couple of the other lunatics that use these kinds of devices against people who actually do things in this state, as opposed to trolls who talk a good game on the internet while doing nothing to help anyone.

Luckily, the rest of the people, the people who actually matter in Connecticut can read about three lines into your screeds and realize that you are completely and totally full of ****.

Back to badges, you know, those steenking badges.

Rich B said:

Charles, you do yourself, your members and the entire community a great disservice with your continual personal attacks.

Unfortunately, you will fit right in here with a couple of the other lunatics that use these kinds of devices against people who actually do things in this state, as opposed to trolls who talk a good game on the internet while doing nothing to help anyone.

Luckily, the rest of the people, the people who actually matter in Connecticut can read about three lines into your screeds and realize that you are completely and totally full of ****.

Click to expand...

Where did I personally attack Ed Peruta? He challenged anyone to prove that he opposes Open Carry and I provided the proof, specifically links to his own briefs which argued to uphold California's Loaded Open Carry ban and California's Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995.

You, of course, just personally attacked me.

"[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

The right to BARE arms

To everyone in Connecticut who reads the posts by Charles Nichols,

Mr. Nichols appears to believe argue and litigate that the Second Amendment right to BARE arms was written specifically to protect OPEN CARRY.

As an individual with permits to carry pistols and revolvers OPENLY or CONCEALED in several states, I am willing to accept either so long as I have the right to BARE a handgun for self defense.

When I applied for a CCW in San Diego County, I was fully aware of the right to OPENLY A HANDGUN OPENLY AND UNLOADED, which was permitted by the California Penal code at the time.

When I made application, I had NO PROBLEM carrying a firearm CONCEALED, and proceeded against government advice to submit an application for a California CCW so that I could BARE a handgun for self defense.

I have the original audio recording of my interviews with the San Diego Sheriff's Department where I expressed my opposition to carrying an EXPOSED UNLOADED firearm.

I could imagine being confronted by one or more plain clothed members of law enforcement with their firearm drawn for the purpose of taking my firearm for inspection to see if it was in fact lawfully UNLOADED or unlawfully LOADED.

The OPEN UNLOADED section of the California Penal Code may have provided the right to carry a firearm, but the penal code failed to provide the right to drive by or within 1.000 feet of a public school with the UNOADED firearm.

My CCW case became a viable case following the repeal of UNLOADED OPEN CARRY by the California legislature.

My understanding of the Second Amendment is very simple, as American citizens, we have the right to BARE arms, plain and simple.

There is no doubt that states that have acknowledged the right to BARE arms while mandating that the firearms being carried by CONCEALED.

In Connecticut, we have continually had to remind members of the public and law enforcement that Connecticut does NOT ISSUE CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMITS.

In Connecticut, we are issued PERMITS TO CARRY PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS, which allows Connecticut Permit holders to carry openly or concealed.

A good example is the fact that I hold a Florida CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT which permits me to carry as long as I conceal the firearm.

I don't have a problem with states that mandate CONCEALED CARRY, and do in fact prefer to CARRY OPENLY if permitted by state law.

I JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO CARRY A HANDGUN FOR SELF DEFENSE IN EVERY STATE I MAY BE IN.

Charles Nichols is a litigant in the State of California and is attempting to have LOADED OPEN CARRY mandated in the State of California.

I can think of a few hundred situations where LOADED OPEN CARRY is NOT practical or desired by individuals, (male and female), who carry firearms for self defense.

I'm sure that others reading this post can do likewise.

For those that know me here in Connecticut, rest assured, I have and do support OPEN CARRY by those with valid permits to do so.

Edward Peruta said:

To everyone in Connecticut who reads the posts by Charles Nichols,

Mr. Nichols appears to believe argue and litigate that the Second Amendment right to BARE arms was written specifically to protect OPEN CARRY.

For those that know me here in Connecticut, rest assured, I have and do support OPEN CARRY by those with valid permits to do so.

Click to expand...

Like it or not, the US Supreme court has held that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution and that concealed carry can be banned. Moreover, according to SCOTUS, concealed carry is immoral and Open Carry is noble. Don't like it? Write a letter.

The Heller decision spelled it out for you:

"[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.

In the two and a half years I have been litigating my Open Carry lawsuit I have always argued that the Supreme Court meant exactly what it said, nothing more and nothing less. Even YOUR own lawyer says that YOU are going to lose. Here is the link to the video.

YOU will then file a cert petition and it will be denied just as every concealed carry cert petition has been denied. If SCOTUS were to grant a concealed carry cert petition it would have granted it for the Drake case out of New Jersey, a state which is far, far more restrictive than California.

Courts are bound by prior precedent. Only the US Supreme Court can reverse itself and this Court has made it clear that it is not going to reverse itself on the question of concealed carry.

As for your insistence that someone must have a permit, there is absolutely no US Supreme Court precedent which has held that an individual, acting alone and outside of a group context, can be required to have a permit to exercise a fundamental right. Both YOU and the SAF have been, and are to this day, arguing that an individual can be denied his fundamental, enumerated Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms absent a government issued permission slip.

A permit requirement destroys the right. A permit converts a right into a privilege, one that the government can take away as easily as taking away the permit.

YOU Ed Peruta, and your fellow travelers, present far more of a danger to the Second Amendment than the Brady bunch ever will.

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

A right by license or permit is NOT a right, it is a privilege. The second amendment is not about privileges but rights. Being pro LICENSED carry is not pro 2A whether concealed or open.

The very idea of wearing a Concealed Carry Badge makes my teeth hurt!

Grapeshot said:

The very idea of wearing a Concealed Carry Badge makes my teeth hurt!

Click to expand...

+1 Make no bones about it, no matter what the badge says it is pretending to be LE.

Grapeshot said:

The very idea of wearing a Concealed Carry Badge makes my teeth hurt!

Click to expand...

Good thing it isn't. Did you read the OP?

WalkingWolf said:

+1 Make no bones about it, no matter what the badge says it is pretending to be LE.

Click to expand...

Talk about harmful to 'rights'. Did you think about this before you said it?



^ Pretending to be LE!

Rich B said:

Talk about harmful to 'rights'. Did you think about this before you said it?

^ Pretending to be LE!

Click to expand...

Did you even bother to read the OP, NOBODY is talking about firefighter badges. But since you brought it up, why would a firefighter need his badge when not working? YES, I have seen fire fighters try to give the impression they are cops, not very many, but a few.

There is no reason for anybody to wear a badge when they are not a police officer, unless they have arrest powers and are carrying under authority of the state.

Just can imagine a firefighter seeing a fire off duty, pulls his badge and order the fire to surrender... :banana:

WalkingWolf said:

Did you even bother to read the OP, NOBODY is talking about firefighter badges. But since you brought it up, why would a firefighter need his badge when not working? YES, I have seen fire fighters try to give the impression they are cops, not very many, but a few.

There is no reason for anybody to wear a badge when they are not a police officer, unless they have arrest powers and are carrying under authority of the state.

Just can imagine a firefighter seeing a fire off duty, pulls his badge and order the fire to surrender... :banana:

Click to expand...

"There is no reason for anybody to carry a gun when they are not a police officer, unless they have arrest powers and are carrying under authority of the state."

Herp. Derp.

Rich B said:

"There is no reason for anybody to carry a gun when they are not a police officer, unless they have arrest powers and are carrying under authority of the state."

Herp. Derp.

Click to expand...

NOW that is just dumb! Badges are not protected by the consitution and they are not a right. They convey authority, that is there purpose. NON LEOs have no authority of the state, they only have the right to carry.

So tell us, do you wear your firefighter badge next to your EDC? :banana::banana::banana: