• 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.

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

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
He will never give you a straight answer. However, I have filed one with the court which cites two legal authorities. You can read it here -> http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/92-ROM1.pdf

What judge Otero held was that I could not make a race based equal protection challenge because I had not plead (stated in my Complaint) that the law had been enforced against me because of my race. In support of which he cited a 9th circuit decision filed after he had denied the state's motion to dismiss my First Amended Complain (FAC) (My FAC contained the same race based equal protection claim). The decision Judge Otero cited (Furnace) was a case involving a religious equal protection claim by a prisoner who was upset because he had not been served vegetarian meals.

All of the relevant briefs and FRAP 28(j) letters are linked at my website for anyone to read -> http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=6922

The inmate had never claimed that he was denied vegetarian meals because of his religion or because the guards had a policy or custom of denying vegetarian meals based upon one's religion.

From my initial complaint filed in November of 2011, I had argued that the law was racially motivated and that I suffer an ongoing injury from its enforcement.

Judge Otero had no problem with the way I framed my race based equal protection claim until he issued final judgment on May 1, 2014. On July 3, 2013, Judge Otero couldn't find anything wrong with my race based equal protection claim when he denied my motion for a preliminary injunction on July 3, 2013. Instead, Judge Otero said he was denying my motion because I had not provided evidence showing that the law was disproportionately enforced. Presumably, he was relying on a US Supreme Court decision from 1985 which required that one show disproportionate enforcement by a preponderance of the evidence. I don't know because Judge Otero did not cite a case in support of his conclusion that I was required to make a showing that the law is disproportionately enforced against minorities. I did prove disproportionate enforcement in my motion for partial summary judgment and I provided the proof in my Second Amended Complaint which courts are required to accept as true.

But that doesn't matter because a decade later (1996) the US Supreme Court held that animus (and it doesn't have to be racial animus) is sufficient reason to strike down a law even under rational basis review.

Moreover, Judge Otero's holding that one must plead that a criminal statute has been enforced against him because of his race would preclude pre-enforcement challenges by racial minorities.

Whichever way my appeal goes, I don't thing the three judge panel is going to remain silent on that very bizarre holding of Judge Otero.


Another thing lubed&cocked doesn't seem to understand, which is pretty conclusive proof that he is not a lawyer despite its claim to the contrary, is the rationale Judge Otero applied is not at issue in my appeal. The state conceded in its Answering Brief that "[T]he district court here relied on case law subsequently superseded to apply rational-basis review and to uphold California’s open-carry laws..."

The state's attorney did not defend the rationale of the district court in his Answering Brief, he flat out stated that Judge Otero got the case law wrong and Judge Otero was wrong to apply rational-basis review.

For that matter, the entirety of my appeal is what the courts call a de novo review which, in the context of my appeal where the facts are not in dispute, means that it doesn't matter what rationale the district court gave for upholding California's Open Carry bans.

No deference is given to the district court decision under de novo review. Either the court of appeals holds that there is no Second Amendment right even one inch outside the doors to our homes or the court of appeals holds that the Second Amendment does extend beyond the doors to our home but nevertheless, the bans are constitutional.

Doesn't it seem odd that the self-professed lawyer/astronauts here can't cite any case law in support of their rantings and ravings and yet I, someone who is not an attorney, have no difficulty in providing pinpoint citations in support of my arguments?

Finally Charlie admits that what I have been saying all along is true. Namely, that the problem with his 'case' is that he did not write a proper complaint. It has nothing to do with substantive 2A issues. So, why is he spending any time discussing 2A substantive issues (which he is wrong on)?

Now, concerning his legal analytical skills and abilities to interpret cases and caselaw you can read the Decision and Posts #'s 91, 100, 123, and 133. Then tell me your confidence level concerning the above analysis.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
I do not know who or what he is.

His opinion may not conform to yours - that does not make it a crime.

You do know who he is, I reported his criminal threat and you chose to do nothing. Last time I heard the co-founder of this site obtained a law degree. Perhaps you should ask John Pierce whether or not it is a crime and whether or not you have exposed yourself to prosecution.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
You do know who he is, I reported his criminal threat and you chose to do nothing. Last time I heard the co-founder of this site obtained a law degree. Perhaps you should ask John Pierce whether or not it is a crime and whether or not you have exposed yourself to prosecution.
Your opinion is just that and you are not an attorney either.

Suggest that you contact John direct.
 

wabbit

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
153
Location
briar patch, NM
Moderator, have you ever reported lubed&coked for impersonating an attorney. Also, why did you allow him to threaten me with a false police report? Is it the policy of OpenCarry.org to facilitate crime?

Charle, quite impressive, while attempting to be kute and as well as quite foul mouth insulting towards a forum member you shot yoursel in the foot.

please share your response from the forum's owners, now that should be a interesting read.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Charle, quite impressive, while attempting to be kute and as well as quite foul mouth insulting towards a forum member you shot yoursel in the foot.

please share your response from the forum's owners, now that should be a interesting read.

His response may very well be in response to a civil suit, in which case everyone will be able to read it.

P.S. You really need to work on your spelling and grammar. Not graduating from school is no excuse.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
I will. But first explain to me why someone needs to be an attorney to be a victim of a criminal threat and why my not being an attorney absolves you of any liability?
I did not say those things that you seem to suggest I did. You approach a severe rule violation.

I'm done with this discussion with you, but thanks for playing.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Check for Updates at my Website - http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

Cali RTC,

Any idea why your appeal hearing has not been scheduled?

LFOD,
Thundar

Tentatively rescheduled to Hawaii the week of February 12th, 2018.

I won't be posting here again. For the current status of my appeal you, and others, will have to check my website -> http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
Bull Manure

Tentatively rescheduled to Hawaii the week of February 12th, 2018.

I won't be posting here again. For the current status of my appeal you, and others, will have to check my website -> http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

With the exception of clerical errors, cases are either scheduled or not. There is no such thing as 'tentatively' scheduled. If a case is put on the calendar then it is scheduled. If it is not on the calendar, then it is not.

Charlie claims that his case is 'tentatively rescheduled'. Yet his case never appeared on a calendar to begin with. I call bull manure.

I also stand by my prediction that Charlie will NEVER get oral argument in his 'case'. This is just another attempt to string his sucker donors along. You don't get oral argument when you already have been given 3 chances to write a viable complaint and have failed miserably. 3 strikes and your out; what is there to talk about?
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
Tentatively rescheduled to Hawaii the week of February 12th, 2018.

I won't be posting here again. For the current status of my appeal you, and others, will have to check my website ->

Thank God.

How anyone, let alone the admins tolerated this incompetent blowhard for this long is beyond comprehension.

I do wonder though,... if his donors ever consider where their money goes, considering that he never sought competent legal help.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Update from California Right to Carry Website:

On October 10, 2017, I received notice from the court that my case is being considered for oral argument in Pasadena in February, March or April of 2018.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Update from California Right to Carry Website:

On October 10, 2017, I received notice from the court that my case is being considered for oral argument in Pasadena in February, March or April of 2018.


OMG...let the dead rest in peace...
 

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
782
Location
Central Ky.
Thank God.

How anyone, let alone the admins tolerated this incompetent blowhard for this long is beyond comprehension.

I do wonder though,... if his donors ever consider where their money goes, considering that he never sought competent legal help.

If incompetents and blowhards had to be excluded, I doubt that we could get enough people amongst the members of OCDO for us to play a basketball game.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Not dead yet

OMG...let the dead rest in peace...

Solus,

CA Right to Carry isn’t dead. Only he or SCOTUS can kill his action. The point is CA Right to Carry may be down, but he hasn’t surrendered his legal battle. He isn’t dead until he gives up or SCOTUS either does not take the case or rules against him.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
Update from California Right to Carry Website:

On October 10, 2017, I received notice from the court that my case is being considered for oral argument in Pasadena in February, March or April of 2018.

First it was Hawaii.... now Pasadena? Like I said before, I call big-time Bull Manure!
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Solus,

CA Right to Carry isn’t dead. Only he or SCOTUS can kill his action. The point is CA Right to Carry may be down, but he hasn’t surrendered his legal battle. He isn’t dead until he gives up or SCOTUS either does not take the case or rules against him.

sorry, apparently our definitions might be a bit different...lost in the court's bureaucracy isn't alive now is it ~ no more alive then a balanced budget, repeal of health care, or Hillary running again!

1. what is this individual's claim to success except to con his donor(s) down the red brick path.
2. if there is no start except to scream lookie what i did...and there is absolutely no set date, except future maybe(s)...
3. it is dead ~ night of the living dead style!
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
First it was Hawaii.... now Pasadena? Like I said before, I call big-time Bull Manure!

Cocked and Locked,

You may be right about the merits of CA RTC’s case, but at the Circuit court level, the case must eventually be ruled upon. Doen’t mean the circuit court must hear the case. That ruling can be appealed to the Supreme Court. Not saying SCOTUS would take the case, but IF CA RTC decides to appeal a 9th Circuit Court ruling, the case isn’t dead until SCOTUS says it is dead.

LFOD,
Thundar
 
Last edited:

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
Cocked and Locked,

You may be right about the merits of CA RTC’s case, but at the Circuit court level, the case must eventually be ruled upon. Doen’t mean the circuit court must hear the case. That ruling can be appealed to the Supreme Court. Not saying SCOTUS would take the case, but IF CA RTC decides to appeal a 9th Circuit Court ruling, the case isn’t dead until SCOTUS says it is dead.

LFOD,
Thundar

This case was dead on day 1, when he filed an incompetent complaint! But you are entitled to believe what you want. Some people think Elvis and Tupac are still alive also.
 
Last edited:

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
I Call Bullspit

Tentatively rescheduled to Hawaii the week of February 12th, 2018.

I won't be posting here again. For the current status of my appeal you, and others, will have to check my website -> http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

The 9th Cir. Court of Appeals calendars are out for Feb. and Mr. Charlatan's case is not listed. Anybody else not surprised?

To all his donors:

You have been suckered.
You have been bamboozled.
You have been ripped-off.

Wake up and smell the coffee.
 
Top