Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 224

Thread: Status of California Open Carry Lawsuit - Charles Nichols v. Edmund Brown, Jr., et al

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

    Post Status of California Open Carry Lawsuit - Charles Nichols v. Edmund Brown, Jr., et al

    EDIT: This thread was created when my April 5, 2016 update was relevant. That update is now obsolete.

    For the current status of my California Open Carry appeal, click here.
    Last edited by California Right To Carry; 07-21-2016 at 04:24 PM. Reason: Update
    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
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Thx for the update ...

  3. #3
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    En Banc loss in Peruta.

    Now what?

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Quote Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
    En Banc loss in Peruta.

    Now what?
    Link provided:
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...90#post2192690
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    Tried to upload the pdf. too large

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,155
    Quote Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
    Tried to upload the pdf. too large
    Link to the PDF
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
    Tried to upload the pdf. too large
    Here's a summary : the gov't can try to regulate your natural right to carry.

    Its takes them over 100 pages to try to grant the gov't authority for something that they never had or will ever have the authority to regulate.

    The old divide and conquer scheme. And most people eat it up.

    Want to play tic-tac-toe now?

  8. #8
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463

    Smile Prohibitory laws vs Regulatory laws

    Now that concealed carry has gone down in flames in the 9th Circuit the haters just gotta be hating my California Open Carry lawsuit not forgetting the guy who filed it of course.

    As usual, we have all of these "experts" and tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nut-jobs predicting the demise of my appeal on the various forums for various reasons.

    A couple of them have pointed to the concurrence which said that it would apply intermediate scrutiny to the California concealed carry statute.

    "I concur fully in the majority opinion. I write separately
    only to state that, even if we assume that the Second
    Amendment applied to the carrying of concealed weapons in
    public, the provisions at issue would be constitutional. Three
    of our sister circuits have upheld similar restrictions under
    intermediate scrutiny. Such restrictions strike a permissible
    balance between “granting handgun permits to those persons
    known to be in need of self-protection and precluding a
    dangerous proliferation of handguns on the streets.”

    There are so many reasons why that does not apply to Open Carry but let us assume for the sake of argument that those who wish me to fail or correct and that whatever panel of judges assigned to my appeal would be inclined to apply intermediate scrutiny. They cannot under the prior precedents which are binding on any three judge panel and precedents that an en banc panel would have to overrule in order to apply a watered down version of intermediate scrutiny to my appeal.

    The insurmountable obstacle faced by the eventual panel assigned to my case is that unlike the CCW statute, which is a regulatory statute, the bans I am challenging are just that bans (known as prohibitory laws). Even the state's attorney referred to them as bans. Given that the laws I am challenging are prohibitory laws, there is no "good cause" or "good moral character" provisions which can be satisfied in order to (for the purpose of self-defense): openly carry a loaded firearm even one inch outside of the door to our homes in incorporated cities and in unincorporated county territory where the discharge of a firearm is prohibited, to openly carry an unloaded handgun in the same prohibited places, or to openly carry an unloaded long gun in an incorporated city outside of a motor vehicle. And, of course nobody who lives in a county with 200,000 or more people, regardless of his satisfying all of the requirements under the CCW statutes, can obtain a license to openly carry a handgun and California does not require a license to openly carry a long gun. If you are in a place which does not require permission to possess a firearm, such as on the grounds of a school, then the open carry of a long gun is legal without a license as I have just described.

    In the 9th Circuit, even a ban on foie gras is subject to strict scrutiny.

    For me to lose my Second Amendment challenge, the court of appeals will have to conclude that the Second Amendment does not extend even one inch outside the doors of our homes.

    Which would in turn give me the SCOTUS Rule 10 splits that none of the concealed carry cases have and whichever judges are assigned to my appeal will know this because I will have said so in my Opening Brief.

    P.S. Would someone tell "wolfwood" to stop lying about me? I never asked him to represent someone in San Diego for free or otherwise in an Open Carry case. I don't even know anyone in San Diego. I told him once in an aside to one of the endless questions he asked me two or three years ago that my original strategy was to hire a lawyer and to file an Open Carry lawsuit in each of California's Federal districts but as I could not find a competent lawyer or plaintiffs, it never panned out (and it is too late to do so today if you are curious).

    Also, he looks particularly foolish presenting himself as a qualified lawyer and then asking questions on the forums which every third year law student knows the answer to. Perhaps it is because he is a self-described vegetarian, Californian Buddhist with an apparent fascination with switch blades and other exotic knives coupled with an insatiable need to be liked by the concealed carry trolls.

    I don't know and more importantly, I don't care what his flaws are. The court of appeals is going to b*tch slap his two cases out of Hawaii and it is just a matter of time before he loses his second machine-gun case. Why on earth anyone would bring a machine-gun case when we haven't even solidified a right to carry so much as a loaded or unloaded flintlock in public (other than in the 7th Circuit) is beyond me.

    But then I am not a self-described vegetarian, Californian Buddhist with an apparent fascination with switch blades and other exotic knives coupled with an insatiable need to be liked by the concealed carry trolls who doesn't know answers to legal questions which any third year law student should know.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Mark Twain - Never argue with stupid people.jpg 
Views:	71 
Size:	29.0 KB 
ID:	13145
    Last edited by California Right To Carry; 06-20-2016 at 08:10 AM.
    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

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    A couple of them have pointed to the concurrence which said that it would apply intermediate scrutiny to the California concealed carry statute.

    "I concur fully in the majority opinion. I write separately
    only to state that, even if we assume that the Second
    Amendment applied to the carrying of concealed weapons in
    public, the provisions at issue would be constitutional. Three
    of our sister circuits have upheld similar restrictions under
    intermediate scrutiny. Such restrictions strike a permissible
    balance between “granting handgun permits to those persons
    known to be in need of self-protection and precluding a
    dangerous proliferation of handguns on the streets.”

    There are so many reasons why that does not apply to Open Carry
    I had hoped that the RKBA community had learned our lesson with the Scary Looking Gun Ban of 1994. When we allow the gun haters to divide us into various camps, the gun grabbers win. Fudds vs Self-Defense vs Collectors vs Sport Shooters resulted in the gun grabbers winning. OCers vs CCers will have the same result.

    Sadly, but not surprisingly, the 9th circuit dismissed out of hand the one State court ruling that laid out a logical case for why any infringements of RKBA are a violation of constitutional protections.

    The "logic" used in the opinion quoted draws no lines between OC and CC. It speaks only of the need to "[preclude] a dangerous proliferation of handguns on the streets." Whether the handgun can be seen or not doesn't seem to materially affect how "dangerous" that handgun might be.

    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    The insurmountable obstacle faced by the eventual panel assigned to my case is that unlike the CCW statute, which is a regulatory statute, the bans I am challenging are just that bans (known as prohibitory laws). Even the state's attorney referred to them as bans. Given that the laws I am challenging are prohibitory laws, there is no "good cause" or "good moral character" provisions which can be satisfied in
    So simply requiring that those who have satisfied the "good moral character" clause to obtain a permit to carry be allowed to OC if they choose would "strike a permissible balance between “granting handgun permits to those persons known to be in need of self-protection and precluding a dangerous proliferation of handguns on the streets"?

    Or maybe, the court simply finds that the "right" protected by the 2nd amendment isn't absolute and is subject to "common sense restrictions". So long as those restrictions are rational and strike a balance between the need for individual self-defense and general public order and safety, they pass muster at the intermediate scrutiny level.

    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    In the 9th Circuit, even a ban on foie gras is subject to strict scrutiny.
    I sincerely hope the 9th circuit applies strict scrutiny to the possession of firearms in public. I won't hold my breath on the most overturned circuit court in the nation getting it right.


    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    For me to lose my Second Amendment challenge, the court of appeals will have to conclude that the Second Amendment does not extend even one inch outside the doors of our homes.
    I think they are far more creative and clever than you give them credit.

    I sincerely hope you are successful. I hope that everyone working to advance RKBA is successful.

    I wish you and others were not hostile to CC nor any other aspect of our RKBA.


    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    But then I am not a self-described vegetarian, Californian Buddhist with an apparent fascination with switch blades and other exotic knives
    I don't know that there is any reason to disparage persons based on dietary choices, religious affiliation, or an affinity for edged weapons (which are also covered by RKBA).

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    I didn't see any disparagement there.
    In context of the full post, I think the disparagement is fairly obvious. I suppose had he included in the list of things he isn't, but believes his nemeses is, such things as homosexual, Jew, black, woman, redneck, or Confederate-loving Southerner, the disparagement might have been more obvious.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    Well, once again, we disagree. What a surprise!
    Obviously we disagree as the last couple of posts make clear. Nothing wrong with honest disagreement. The key is to remain civil in disagreement and to focus on issues rather than personalities.

    All the best.

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 06-21-2016 at 05:42 PM.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post

    I didn't see any disparagement there. He just said that he wasn't one. It seemed more like a limiting factor in his identification. He is not a member of those groups. He is not a polar bear, a Presbyterian or a giant panda. That doesn't mean that he is disparaging those things. Just narrowing things down a little. There are a lot more things that each of us "aren't" that things that we are. That doesn't mean we disparage those groups, just because we are not members of them and state that we are not.
    Broaden your vision to include the fact that his case was not to promote OC in California but to compel state permission on demand for CC. That would be a good start, getting shall issue in California, but his efforts would be (have been) better spent on moving to a liberty respecting state such as Utah.
    "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

  13. #13
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post

    I didn't see any disparagement there. He just said that he wasn't one. It seemed more like a limiting factor in his identification. He is not a member of those groups. He is not a polar bear, a Presbyterian or a giant panda. That doesn't mean that he is disparaging those things. Just narrowing things down a little. There are a lot more things that each of us "aren't" that things that we are. That doesn't mean we disparage those groups, just because we are not members of them and state that we are not.
    I am not any of the things listed but to be honest, it could be fun to be a giant panda every now and then.

    On an unrelated note, have email subscribers to this thread been receiving email notifications of new posts? I haven't and so I've unsubscribed/resubscribed in the hope it was some forum glitch (and yes, I checked my bulk mail/spam folder).
    Last edited by California Right To Carry; 06-22-2016 at 04:53 AM.
    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

  14. #14
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,880
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Obviously we disagree as the last couple of posts make clear. Nothing wrong with honest disagreement. The key is to remain civil in disagreement and to focus on issues rather than personalities.

    All the best.

    Charles
    mate, as i focus on the issues, are you planning on practicing what you are preaching? if so kudos...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post




    I don't know that there is any reason to disparage persons based on dietary choices, <snip>

    Charles
    Coming from a long line of workers at the Chgo Stockyards ... its a family tradition that non-beef eaters are disparaged. With every generation the disparagement grows weaker...

    Traditions don't have to make sense. And this one is rather a fun one.

    Maybe an exception to the rule? I doubt it...many people see vegans as not being normal.

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

    Smile California still opposes my Open Carry Appeal

    I emailed the state's attorney for Governor Brown and Attorney General Harris asking what his clients current position on the Second Amendment is given the concession of the California Solicitor General during the en banc oral arguments in Peruta v. San Diego/Richards v. Prieto that, as per Heller, the Second Amendment right to openly carry a firearm extends beyond the curtilage of one's home.

    This is the response I received just a few minutes ago:

    The AGO does not have any comment to make in response to your questions below, other than to make clear that the AGO will be opposing your appeal in your open-carry case.

    I followed up with an email reminding the state's attorney that Governor Brown is also an appellee and to confirm his position.

    I expect to receive the same response regarding Governor Brown.

    Update: The state's attorney replied that Governor Brown has the same position.
    Last edited by California Right To Carry; 07-10-2016 at 03:50 AM.
    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

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    I emailed the state's attorney for Governor Brown and Attorney General Harris asking what his clients current position on the Second Amendment is given the concession of the California Solicitor General during the en banc oral arguments in Peruta v. San Diego/Richards v. Prieto that, as per Heller, the Second Amendment right to openly carry a firearm extends beyond the curtilage of one's home.

    This is the response I received just a few minutes ago:

    The AGO does not have any comment to make in response to your questions below, other than to make clear that the AGO will be opposing your appeal in your open-carry case.

    I followed up with an email reminding the state's attorney that Governor Brown is also an appellee and to confirm his position.

    I expect to receive the same response regarding Governor Brown.

    Update: The state's attorney replied that Governor Brown has the same position.
    Very amateur move! Just shows you are not ready for primetime, player.
    Last edited by cocked&locked; 07-10-2016 at 04:33 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC Freedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    ADA County, ID
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by cocked&locked View Post
    Very amateur move! Just shows you are not ready for primetime, player.
    How so?

  19. #19
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by cocked&locked View Post
    Very amateur move! Just shows you are not ready for primetime, player.
    And once again my response to a personal attack is deleted while the personal attack against me remains.
    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

  20. #20
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,880
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    And once again my response to a personal attack is deleted while the personal attack against me remains.
    you consider cocked&locked's observational commentary of your approach a personal attack...really?

    instead of discerning which part of your approach possibly needed shoring up like OC Freedom did, i am sure your bruised ego kicked and you launched into a personal aimed tirade...

    btw, since you are only assuaging your ego by posting your honorable, however, ego driven quest on this public forum yet whoever challenges your approach cause significant distress to you so you are personally lashing out at those members.

    which if your ego would let you, you would see why your posts are being deleted.

    by the way this should not be construed as a personal attack.
    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 07-11-2016 at 12:03 AM. Reason: misspelled a couple of words
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  21. #21
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,880
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    And once again --edited by Moderator--.

    And once again his post will remain and my response will be deleted. It appears that the moderator's call for "civil" discourse is a one way street.
    first, thanks for providing your positive substantiation to my previous post since, through your own rantings, my assessment was right on the money.

    second, and your presence and attitude during judicial proceedings is similar to your degrading tratment of members of this public forum???

    finally, so you truly believe your comments toward me constitutes your perception of civil discourse...wow!!

    yet another about to crash head on w/reality...

    best of luck...

    ipse
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 07-11-2016 at 09:58 AM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  22. #22
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,880
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    --deleted by moderator--
    ya know, i am truly glad you are showing your own self destruction of your credibility to all citizens who frequent this site as some actually held a belief you were a viable fighter for the cause.

    by your own hand you have destroyed what forward advances you have so diligently strived for throughout your lifetime.

    you might put together a support group to oversee your crash, which is coming sooner than you are expecting...

    again, best of luck

    ipse
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 07-11-2016 at 03:35 AM. Reason: deleted insulting quote
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  23. #23
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,880
    btw charles, based on your outlandish statements and such, i would be remiss if i didn't offer to contact the proper authorities to immediately provide the needed assistance you require.

    since you are awkwardly communicating with me, do you want me to notify your local authorities, e.g. state police, and provide your website information so they might quickly locate you to do a welfare check?

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    95

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by OC Freedom View Post
    How so?
    Experienced litigators do not contact their adversaries with stupid questions like that! His question implies that something magical has just occurred which should cause them to drop the case when in reality, it is the State that is kicking his ass. Did he not notice who the appellant is? Experienced litigators know what the issue(s) is/are, submit their brief, wait for a response and then submit a reply brief. No questions need to be asked.

    He suggests that somehow he has to either win his case on appeal or appear before the Supreme Court in some Armageddon circuit split. His chances of winning his case in the 9th Circuit are slim and his chance of appearing before the Supreme Court are none!

    The fundamental questions that need to be resolved concerning the 2nd Amendment are not going to be litigated, briefed and argued before the Supreme Court by some wanna-be lawyer. The Supreme Court is not so delusional as to allow something as important as that to be decided in this fashion.


    Good luck, Charlie. I cannot personally attack you because I do not know you. However, your strategy and analysis of cases demonstrates how little you truly know about legal reasoning and how things really work.


    I am now ready to receive your egotistical rant.

    INCOMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  25. #25
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by cocked&locked View Post
    Experienced litigators do not contact their adversaries with stupid questions like that!
    Something did occur and that was the State of California conceding my case during the en banc oral arguments for Peruta/Richards. Now that the state has taken the position that it still opposes my appeal, my appeal cannot be sent to mediation which happened in the Nordyke case.

    Which should be obvious to anyone who has followed Second Amendment cases, particularly those in this circuit.

    Quote Originally Posted by cocked&locked View Post
    Good luck, Charlie. I cannot personally attack you because I do not know you. However, your strategy and analysis of cases demonstrates how little you truly know about legal reasoning and how things really work.
    Solus will soon be discovering that California's criminal threat statute extends to whatever cave he is hiding in as does the reach of the Federal courts. As to my legal reasoning, the en banc court of appeals in Peruta v. Richards published a decision consistent with what I argued in the district court for roughly two and a half years which is half the victory I sought and more than any of the concealed carry cases have achieved.

    But feel free and come out of hiding from the anonymity of the Internet and share with us your qualifications to comment on anything, let alone the law.
    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

Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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