• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
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:

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
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.

NRA Suckers.jpg
 
Top