Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 20, 2015 - Today, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas issued an Order granting My Motion to file My Amicus Brief in Peruta v. San Diego / Richards v. Prieto. I am now officially one of the Amici in the case.
Chief Judge Thomas could have simply denied my motion. We'll have to wait until oral arguments to see if my Amicus brief had any effect. It was important for someone to attack his citation in Peruta to the laws cited in Kachalsky and to attack his citation to the the fourteenth-century Statute of Northampton which was enacted shortly after the Jews were expelled from England. I think I made a convincing argument that a return to the English dark ages is neither desirable nor Constitutional.
In any event, there is now a lone voice standing up for the Second Amendment right to openly carry firearms for the purpose of self-defense. The deadline to file an Amicus brief either in opposition or, as I did, in support of neither party has now passed. The only Amicus briefs that will be filed from this point on until the June 30th deadline will be Amicus briefs in Support of Peruta / Richards. For those of you who might be unfamiliar with the purpose of Amicus briefs they fall into one of three categories: 1) You oppose the legal arguments made by one or more of the parties, 2) You support the legal arguments made by one or more of the parties and 3) You do not support the legal arguments made by any of the parties. I chose door number 3.
The Peruta and Richards plaintiffs argued that California can ban Open Carry. The defense in Peruta made a number of legal arguments. Perhaps the most outrageous was that the Second Amendment should not apply to San Diego because it is adjacent to the Mexican border. The defense in Richards argued that current California law satisfies the Second Amendment because of the exceptions to the Unloaded Open Carry bans.
Mine is the only Amicus brief arguing in support of the Second Amendment as defined in District of Columbia v. Heller which is: "[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 (2008) at 2809
EDIT APRIL 23, 2015 - Here is a list of the Amici in Peruta v. San Diego. All of them have one thing in common - THEY ALL OPPOSE OPEN CARRY
Association Of Prosecuting Attorneys
Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence
California Association Of Federal Firearms Licensees, Inc.
California Peace Officers Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriff’s Association
Center For Constitutional Jurisprudence
Congress Of Racial Equality Inc.
Doctors For Responsible Gun Ownership
Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc.
Firearms Policy Foundation, Inc.
Florida Carry, Inc.
Gun Owners Of California
Gun Rights Across America
Hawaii Defense Foundation
Knife Rights Foundation, Inc.
Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence
Law Enforcement Alliance Of America
Law Enforcement Educators And Trainers Association
Legal Community Against Violence
Liberal Gun Owners Association
Madison Society, Inc.
Major Cities Chiefs Association
Marin County Sheriff Robert Doyle
National Rifle Association Of America, Inc.
San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón
Second Amendment Foundation, Inc
Senator H. L. Richardson (Ret.)
State Of Hawaii
The Calguns Foundation, Inc.
The Independence Institute
The International Brotherhood Of Police Officers
The Police Foundation
HERE IS A LIST OF LAWYERS WHO EITHER OPPOSE OPEN CARRY OR REPRESENT THE ANTI OPEN CARRY AMICI OR REPRESENT THE ANTI OPEN CARRY PARTIES
Bradley A. Benbrook, Attorney
Mr. Gregory David Brown, Deputy Attorney General
Mr. Paul D. Clement, Attorney
Mr. Paul R. Coble, Attorney
Mr. Charles J. Cooper
Doctor John C. Eastman
Mr. Simon J. Frankel, Attorney
Mrs. Kimberly Tsumoto Guidry
Mr. Alan Gura
Stephen Porter Halbrook, Attorney
Mr. Don Kates
Bruce A. Kilday, Attorney
Mr. Donald Kilmer, Jr., Attorney
Professor David Kopel
Mr. Girard Douglas Lau, Deputy Attorney General
Ms. Kathryn Linde Marshall
Allan Jerome Mayer, Attorney
Mr. Martin Joel Mayer
Mr. Carl D. Michel, Senior Attorney
Ross Moody, Deputy Attorney General
Mr. Robert Tadao Nakatsuji
Mr. Paul Henry Neuharth, Jr., Attorney
Mr. Neil R. O'Hanlon, Attorney
Stefan B. Tahmassebi, Deputy General Counsel
Serena M. Warner, Attorney
John A. Whitesides, Attorney
Last edited by California Right To Carry; 04-23-2015 at 04:41 PM. Reason: Added list of opponents of Open Carry from Peruta v. San Diego
Open carriers should understand Charles argument. It is fundamentally different than that of Peruta.
Peruta argues that 2A rights are infringed because of the Sheriff's policy (may issue - show need - not for non prohibited citizens who do not show a special need). This means that Peruta does not challenge California's law that outlaws open carry. The Supreme COurt said long ago that prohibitions on concealed carry do not infringe upon the 2A because open carry ws the right. Gura has argued that states can choose open or concealed carry, but must allow at least one (either/or argument).
I believe that Charles will argue against the Gura either/or argument because the Supreme Court has never said that eliminating open carry is OK if a state allows concealed carry. In fact the Supreme Court has said the open carry is the right, meaning Gura is wrong.
He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty
The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776
Amicus brief. Most of my Argument was devoted to attacking portions of Chief Judge Thomas' dissent in Peruta which implied that he might have no problem with Open Carry bans that were limited to cities, towns and villages.
An Amicus brief is limited to 15 pages or 7,000 words. It was already problematic that my motion, written and filed by someone who isn't a lawyer (me), would be granted and so I kept my brief to 15 pages and 3,592 words. There was no point in duplicating Judge Thomas' extensive dissent pointing out that Open Carry, and not concealed carry, is the Second Amendment right defined by Heller.
I hope everyone reads my Amicus brief. It can be found at the link above.
Once again visiting OCDO forum is like getting a class for free tuition. Looking forward to continued reading as this plays out through the court.
Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."