Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: I am now an Amicus in Peruta v. San Diego en banc

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

    Thumbs up I am now an Amicus in Peruta v. San Diego en banc

    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
    Adam Richards
    Association Of Prosecuting Attorneys
    Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence
    Brett Stewart
    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
    Illinois Carry
    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.
    Pink Pistols
    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 05:41 PM. Reason: Added list of opponents of Open Carry from Peruta v. San Diego
    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

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    ...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...
    Why just for self-defense?? That sounds like something Alan Gura might say.
    Last edited by BB62; 04-20-2015 at 08:07 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    Why just for self-defense?? That sounds like something Alan Gura might say.
    He is citing a cite within the Heller decision.

    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

  4. #4
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    He is citing a cite within the Heller decision.

    Open carriers should understand Charles argument. It is fundamentally different than that of Peruta.

    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.
    Unless I am given time to argue during the en banc oral arguments, my argument is limited to what appears in my 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.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NRA Suckers.jpg 
Views:	79 
Size:	97.4 KB 
ID:	12485
    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

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    He is citing a cite within the Heller decision...
    And doing it without quotes! How curious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    ...
    Thank you for your post. It is understandable and succinct.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    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."

  7. #7
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Nice work, thanks for the update!
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    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.
    Which is exactly where carry is most important.

Posting Permissions

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