• 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
Translation

The following appears on Charlie's website. The translation is mine.


Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – March 13, 2017, Update – I’ve decided not to file responses to the three Amicus briefs filed in opposition. My opposition to their motions to become Amici stands but whether or not their motions are granted is entirely up to the panel of judges which will hear my appeal. The Amicus brief of the Brady Campaign was more of a policy statement or, better yet, an advertisement for the Brady Campaign than it was an actual Amicus brief. The other two Amicus briefs read as if they had been written by a madman. Any judge who would find their briefs useful is not a judge who is susceptible to reason and whatever I were to write in my responses would fall on deaf ears.

Besides, my responses would just give a hostile judge the opportunity to twist my words against me. By my not filing responses to the Amicus briefs the panel of judges which eventually decides my case will be limited to the merit briefs and the pleadings from the district court.


TRANSLATION:

The jig is up. Me and my case have been exposed for the bullspit we are. My donors have dried up. I am tapped out and refuse to spend another dime of my own money on this bs case. Since I am not capable of writing a proper brief in response, I will not waste my own money on it.

Besides, if I do not respond, the judges will be limited to deciding my case on the pleadings (which I have also already proven I am incapable of writing).


THAT ABOUT RIGHT, CHARLIE?
 
Last edited:

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
Surprising

Government kourts reflect the government and statist/regressive institutions in the media and academia, in general. As such, I predicted on this forum that Charles' case was doomed. I predicted Norman in my state of Florida was doomed. I am neither especially smart nor did I have special knowledge.

The absolute best we can hope for, in the decade ahead, is a Supreme Kourt repudiation of discretionary licensing schemes, arbitrary magazine bans, and nonsensical "assault weapons" bans. Unfortunately, it's not that simple because after Heller, you can't walk into a gun store and buy a handgun in DC. If SCOTUS got rid of California's permitting system, the hoops and fees in their forced "shall issue" system would be so onerous, few would do it. Between months or years long waiting periods and incredibly high fees, registration, etc, a list of "prohibited places" a mile long, it would be tied up in the Kourts for decades.

I believe the House version of National Reciprocity (much maligned here), while having about a 1% of passing Congress would also do wonders for "slave states". It gets rid of mag bans, essentially.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Government kourts reflect the government and statist/regressive institutions in the media and academia, in general. As such, I predicted on this forum that Charles' case was doomed. I predicted Norman in my state of Florida was doomed. I am neither especially smart nor did I have special knowledge.

The absolute best we can hope for, in the decade ahead, is a Supreme Kourt repudiation of discretionary licensing schemes, arbitrary magazine bans, and nonsensical "assault weapons" bans. Unfortunately, it's not that simple because after Heller, you can't walk into a gun store and buy a handgun in DC. If SCOTUS got rid of California's permitting system, the hoops and fees in their forced "shall issue" system would be so onerous, few would do it. Between months or years long waiting periods and incredibly high fees, registration, etc, a list of "prohibited places" a mile long, it would be tied up in the Kourts for decades.

I believe the House version of National Reciprocity (much maligned here), while having about a 1% of passing Congress would also do wonders for "slave states". It gets rid of mag bans, essentially.

ah a soothsayer amongst us, tho predicting as hindsight isn't predicting at all, is it!!!

case in point, seeking your name amongst the 109 posts in this thread didn't show one contribution from you whatsoever.

perhaps charlatan might be a better description of your special, but precious talent, eh?

ipse
 
Last edited:

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
399
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
If you want to know what is wrong with Charlie's case then read my post #86 and 88. Additionally, read below what the lower court and his opponent said about his case.

My main problem with Charlie is that he loves to criticize other cases and their lawyers in an attempt to bolster his nonexistent skills. But just look at what the lower court and opponent in his case had to say about HIS CASE AND LAWYERING SKILLS!

After reading it, does anyone think his case is going anywhere but straight to the circular file?

In NY, we call it 'he be a wannabe, writing a check his dumb-ass can't cash'.





Nichols’s opening brief attempts—but fails—to demonstrate that a
broad open-carry right is the historic legal tradition in the United States.
Nichols cites 35 cases from the 1800s that purportedly stand for the
proposition that “Open Carry is the right” guaranteed by the Second
Amendment. AOB 59-60. In most instances, Nichols has misrepresented
the holdings of the cases. Only a few of Nichols’s case cites provide limited
support for his claim: Nunn from Georgia and progeny; Chandler from
Louisiana and progeny; Sutton v. State, 12 Fla. 135 (1867); and Porter v.
State, 66 Tenn. 106 (1874)). Courts in those four States—Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, and Tennessee—held that those States could prohibit concealed
carry only if open carry remained available. But, as discussed above, those
cases are outliers in the entire American experience, and may not even
reflect the way that these laws were administered on a day-to-day basis.
More importantly, those cases do not support Nichols’s claim here that—
regardless of the availability of concealed carry—ordinary, law-abiding
residents of California are entitled to unfettered open carry.
Most of the cases that Nichols cites do not hold or imply that the
Second Amendment guarantees a broad right to openly carry firearms in
public places.

Remember when he was boring us with his assertion that open carry is the right guaranteed by the constitution..... and he doesn't carry a purse..... blah.... blah....... blah. Well as you can see from above, and what I tried to tell him is, the 35 cases he cites do not support his core assertions. That is not just my assessment, it was the findings of the lower court! And on that limited issue, they are absolutely correct!

Not a good example to refute Nichols' claims. The state's claim that these OC cases are "outliers" is plain false. The state has no stated cases where a court holds the 2A protects no form of public carrying. In fact they use a late 1800's Idaho law to back up their claims, yet don't mention the Idaho Supreme court said only a few years later that an OC ban violated the state statute AND the 2A. The fact that some rare total public carry bans existed doesn't amount to "evidence" that a ban is constitutional, only courts can do that. They also keep making the "unfettered" reference; obviously trying to trick the court into thinking permitless open carry or even a shall-issue scheme (which would contain select no carry zones) is "unfettered".
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
ah a soothsayer amongst us, tho predicting as hindsight isn't predicting at all, is it!!!

case in point, seeking your name amongst the 109 posts in this thread didn't show one contribution from you whatsoever.

perhaps charlatan might be a better description of your special, but precious talent, eh?

ipse

i'll be a witness- i seen't it. he's been saying both for a while.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
Not a good example to refute Nichols' claims. The state's claim that these OC cases are "outliers" is plain false. The state has no stated cases where a court holds the 2A protects no form of public carrying. In fact they use a late 1800's Idaho law to back up their claims, yet don't mention the Idaho Supreme court said only a few years later that an OC ban violated the state statute AND the 2A. The fact that some rare total public carry bans existed doesn't amount to "evidence" that a ban is constitutional, only courts can do that. They also keep making the "unfettered" reference; obviously trying to trick the court into thinking permitless open carry or even a shall-issue scheme (which would contain select no carry zones) is "unfettered".

Several problems with your statements.

This is Charlie's case, not the State's case. As such, it is Charlie, not the State, who has the burden of proof. Therefore, what the State has, or has not, proven is irrelevant. The statutes are presumed to be constitutional and it is Charlie's burden to prove them unconstitutional. Not one of his cases both: holds that unfettered open carry is a constitutional right, and is also authoritative in the State of Ca. In effect, he has taken on an impossible burden because that case does not exist yet.

Now, let me ask you. Assuming Charlie's claim had merit (big assumption), is he the person you want at the forefront of the litigation? The Court has already found that: he does not know how to write a complaint or perform basic analysis of cases. Furthermore, he has lost all credibility with the Court by misrepresenting the holdings of cases. He also does not know how to write a brief. Waiting until pg. 63 to address the main point of your case will make your case a sure loser. Just sayin!

Finally, as if it could not get worst, he requested this mythical one-step test of 'infringement'. I asked him ,and now I ask you, what the fuuck is that? Could you, or anyone else, explain what the fuuck the 'infringement' test is because after 3yrs of law school and 27yrs of litigation experience I have no idea what he is talking about.

While there is nothing inherently wrong with asking for something new, you can't just ask for it without explaining exactly what it is you are asking for! When you do what Charlie did it just becomes clear that he has no clue what he is doing and just making it up as he goes along.

So, do you want him as the captain of this ship?
 
Last edited:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Beware the bloviations of the self-described astronaut/lawyers.

Not a good example to refute Nichols' claims. The state's claim that these OC cases are "outliers" is plain false. The state has no stated cases where a court holds the 2A protects no form of public carrying. In fact they use a late 1800's Idaho law to back up their claims, yet don't mention the Idaho Supreme court said only a few years later that an OC ban violated the state statute AND the 2A. The fact that some rare total public carry bans existed doesn't amount to "evidence" that a ban is constitutional, only courts can do that. They also keep making the "unfettered" reference; obviously trying to trick the court into thinking permitless open carry or even a shall-issue scheme (which would contain select no carry zones) is "unfettered".

press1280 - It is pointless to try and reason with the self-described astronaut/lawyers here. Whomever the judges assigned to my panel turn out to be, even the most hostile to the Second Amendment know that if they decide against me then I will have something no other Second Amendment case has had and that is multiple SCOTUS Rule 10 splits. They know that and the state knows that which is why it dumped a 363 page Answering brief on the court asking it to remand my case to the district court so it could do what it was required to do the first time around, prove that the bans pass any level of heightened scrutiny.

One would think that even the astronaut/lawyers here who got their bar card out of a box of Cracker Jacks would know that, under heightened scrutiny, the burden of proof lies with the state and under rational basis review the court is required to look at the reasons the state gave for enacting the bans in order to determine whether or not the state acted arbitrarily or irrationally in enacting the bans.

Given that the state's motivation in enacting the 1967 Loaded Open Carry ban was racial animus, the state did not try to justify the ban in the district court. It's argument was that the Open Carry right defined in Heller does not apply until SCOTUS decides an Open Carry case affirming what it said in Heller. The state's argument on appeal was copied from the ranting and ravings of the EveryTown and the LCAGV briefs.

The state's justification for the Unloaded Open Carry bans isn't going to go over well either with the panel of judges assigned to my case. The legislative finding of the state is that it is the police who are the ones who create the public safety danger and that danger is the police shooting those who openly carry unloaded firearms and shooting those people around them. The Fourth Amendment already prohibits the police from doing this and so in order to accept that finding of the state legislature as "rationally" justifying the Unloaded Open Carry bans means that the panel of judges will have to create a brand new precedent conflicting with every Federal court of appeals and every state court of last result (SCOTUS Rule 10) on the Fourth Amendment not to mention presenting a question of national importance.

The state's argument is that Heller, McDonald, Caetano and Baldwin were wrongly decided. The state seeks to uphold bans on openly carrying loaded and unloaded firearms for the purpose of self-defense in the exact same places where an eight year old child can openly carry loaded and unloaded firearms while hunting or while traveling to and from to his hunting location, which I made clear in my Opening Brief and which the state did not contest in its Answering brief.

Unlike the Baker and Young cases out of Hawaii, there are no standing issues raised by the Appellees in my case and the facts are not in dispute. The only questions before the court of appeals in my case are pure questions of law. My argument is that the US Supreme Court decisions are binding on this circuit, the state's arguments are that the US Supreme Court decisions are wrong as are this circuit's prior binding decisions.

Baker was remanded in an unpublished decision without getting his preliminary injunction, Young asks for relief he either did not seek in the district court or relief the court of appeals cannot grant.

This leaves my California Open Carry case as the last one standing.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
Infringement Test

press1280 - It is pointless to try and reason with the self-described astronaut/lawyers here. Whomever the judges assigned to my panel turn out to be, even the most hostile to the Second Amendment know that if they decide against me then I will have something no other Second Amendment case has had and that is multiple SCOTUS Rule 10 splits. They know that and the state knows that which is why it dumped a 363 page Answering brief on the court asking it to remand my case to the district court so it could do what it was required to do the first time around, prove that the bans pass any level of heightened scrutiny.

One would think that even the astronaut/lawyers here who got their bar card out of a box of Cracker Jacks would know that, under heightened scrutiny, the burden of proof lies with the state and under rational basis review the court is required to look at the reasons the state gave for enacting the bans in order to determine whether or not the state acted arbitrarily or irrationally in enacting the bans.

Given that the state's motivation in enacting the 1967 Loaded Open Carry ban was racial animus, the state did not try to justify the ban in the district court. It's argument was that the Open Carry right defined in Heller does not apply until SCOTUS decides an Open Carry case affirming what it said in Heller. The state's argument on appeal was copied from the ranting and ravings of the EveryTown and the LCAGV briefs.

The state's justification for the Unloaded Open Carry bans isn't going to go over well either with the panel of judges assigned to my case. The legislative finding of the state is that it is the police who are the ones who create the public safety danger and that danger is the police shooting those who openly carry unloaded firearms and shooting those people around them. The Fourth Amendment already prohibits the police from doing this and so in order to accept that finding of the state legislature as "rationally" justifying the Unloaded Open Carry bans means that the panel of judges will have to create a brand new precedent conflicting with every Federal court of appeals and every state court of last result (SCOTUS Rule 10) on the Fourth Amendment not to mention presenting a question of national importance.

The state's argument is that Heller, McDonald, Caetano and Baldwin were wrongly decided. The state seeks to uphold bans on openly carrying loaded and unloaded firearms for the purpose of self-defense in the exact same places where an eight year old child can openly carry loaded and unloaded firearms while hunting or while traveling to and from to his hunting location, which I made clear in my Opening Brief and which the state did not contest in its Answering brief.

Unlike the Baker and Young cases out of Hawaii, there are no standing issues raised by the Appellees in my case and the facts are not in dispute. The only questions before the court of appeals in my case are pure questions of law. My argument is that the US Supreme Court decisions are binding on this circuit, the state's arguments are that the US Supreme Court decisions are wrong as are this circuit's prior binding decisions.

Baker was remanded in an unpublished decision without getting his preliminary injunction, Young asks for relief he either did not seek in the district court or relief the court of appeals cannot grant.

This leaves my California Open Carry case as the last one standing.

Hey Charlie, what is the 'infringement' test?


LOL
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE!

press1280 - It is pointless to try and reason with the self-described astronaut/lawyers here. Whomever the judges assigned to my panel turn out to be, even the most hostile to the Second Amendment know that if they decide against me then I will have something no other Second Amendment case has had and that is multiple SCOTUS Rule 10 splits. They know that and the state knows that which is why it dumped a 363 page Answering brief on the court asking it to remand my case to the district court so it could do what it was required to do the first time around, prove that the bans pass any level of heightened scrutiny.

The State is asking the judgment of total dismissal of your case be affirmed. Where are they asking for a remand of any portion of your case?

You need to stop lying to people, Mr. Charlatan.


What is the infringement test? LOL.

You need to answer that question to stop the laughter and prevent me from officially internetly disbarring you. LOL
 
Last edited:

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
ah a soothsayer amongst us, tho predicting as hindsight isn't predicting at all, is it!!!

case in point, seeking your name amongst the 109 posts in this thread didn't show one contribution from you whatsoever.

perhaps charlatan might be a better description of your special, but precious talent, eh?

ipse


LOL. I've been saying it since before you joined the forum, silly man. But yes, many people in Florida on social media were hopeful Norman would be victorious in declaring 790.053 unconstitutional. I said otherwise in 2012 when he was arrested.
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
399
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
Several problems with your statements.

This is Charlie's case, not the State's case. As such, it is Charlie, not the State, who has the burden of proof. Therefore, what the State has, or has not, proven is irrelevant. The statutes are presumed to be constitutional and it is Charlie's burden to prove them unconstitutional. Not one of his cases both: holds that unfettered open carry is a constitutional right, and is also authoritative in the State of Ca. In effect, he has taken on an impossible burden because that case does not exist yet.

Now, let me ask you. Assuming Charlie's claim had merit (big assumption), is he the person you want at the forefront of the litigation? The Court has already found that: he does not know how to write a complaint or perform basic analysis of cases. Furthermore, he has lost all credibility with the Court by misrepresenting the holdings of cases. He also does not know how to write a brief. Waiting until pg. 63 to address the main point of your case will make your case a sure loser. Just sayin!

Finally, as if it could not get worst, he requested this mythical one-step test of 'infringement'. I asked him ,and now I ask you, what the fuuck is that? Could you, or anyone else, explain what the fuuck the 'infringement' test is because after 3yrs of law school and 27yrs of litigation experience I have no idea what he is talking about.

While there is nothing inherently wrong with asking for something new, you can't just ask for it without explaining exactly what it is you are asking for! When you do what Charlie did it just becomes clear that he has no clue what he is doing and just making it up as he goes along.

So, do you want him as the captain of this ship?

Not sure what you mean about his cases holding an "unfettered" right to open carry. Nunn, Chandler, and In re Brickey all hold a general right to open carry. The state attempts to make it seem that Nichols is seeking a right to open carry and wave the gun in people's faces and act in a violent manner.
The bottom line is the court is in a box. Hold there's no right to public carry period or hold the OC ban unconstitutional. What happens after, my fear, is may-issue extended to OC permits statewide.
If someone else like Gura or Paul Clement would get behind an OC case I'd be all in. But they're not, so that's where we are now.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
Not sure what you mean about his cases holding an "unfettered" right to open carry. Nunn, Chandler, and In re Brickey all hold a general right to open carry. The state attempts to make it seem that Nichols is seeking a right to open carry and wave the gun in people's faces and act in a violent manner.
The bottom line is the court is in a box. Hold there's no right to public carry period or hold the OC ban unconstitutional. What happens after, my fear, is may-issue extended to OC permits statewide.
If someone else like Gura or Paul Clement would get behind an OC case I'd be all in. But they're not, so that's where we are now.

This is not the forum to address how good Gura or Clement are. This is the forum to address just how bad Mr. Charlatan is!

Feel free to read all my posts and tell me specifically what I got wrong about Mr. Charlatan.

And while you are at it, please address the pending question; what is the infringement test?
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
399
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
This is not the forum to address how good Gura or Clement are. This is the forum to address just how bad Mr. Charlatan is!

Feel free to read all my posts and tell me specifically what I got wrong about Mr. Charlatan.

And while you are at it, please address the pending question; what is the infringement test?

You may not be wrong, maybe he does suck. Problem is, no one else is stepping up to the plate to challenge any OC laws (except Norman in FL). We've had quite a long while since McDonald was handed down and many losses and still they won't challenge any OC laws. I merely point out his brief carries more weight than the state's which is mostly fiction.

Don't know what an infringement test is; perhaps a generic term he's using?
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Beware the self-described astronaut/lawyers

You may not be wrong, maybe he does suck. Problem is, no one else is stepping up to the plate to challenge any OC laws (except Norman in FL). We've had quite a long while since McDonald was handed down and many losses and still they won't challenge any OC laws. I merely point out his brief carries more weight than the state's which is mostly fiction.

Don't know what an infringement test is; perhaps a generic term he's using?

In my opening brief I suggested that the Court adopt the corollary to the one-step inquiry it used in Peruta (en banc). If the law infringes on the Second Amendment then it is unconstitutional because the Second Amendment says the right shall not be infringed. What the astronaut/lawyer omits is that I argued that the district court was bound by the two-step inquiry adopted by the 9th circuit in Chovan which is the framework adopted by most of the circuits including the 7th which struck down the bans on carrying loaded and unloaded firearms in incorporated cities, towns and villages.

Under the two-step inquiry the court first decides whether or not the law implicates conduct protected by the Second Amendment, if it does then it applies the "appropriate" level of scrutiny (intermediate or strict) depending upon the severity of the burden. The state's attorney characterized the laws at issue in my case as bans, as did I. The state's argument in the district court wasn't that my lawsuit conflicted in any way with the Second Amendment right defined in Heller. The state's argument was that the Open Carry right defined in Heller does not apply to the states until SCOTUS decides an Open Carry case and applies the Open Carry right defined in Heller to the states. I argued that SCOTUS did exactly that in McDonald when it explicitly held that the right defined in Heller applies against the states AND when it held that the Second Amendment applies in full against the states.

I made the same argument on appeal in my Opening Brief.

Instead, the district court applied the divided three judge panel decision in Peruta entirely on its own. The state did not cite Peruta for obvious reasons and I did not cite Peruta for obvious reasons, not the least of which the district court was bound by the Chovan decision and the Peruta three judge panel decision conflicted with Chovan.

The state changed its argument on appeal to now claim that there is no Open Carry right, at all. The state's argument isn't "mostly fiction" it is fantasy. Moreover, were the court of appeals to adopt that fantasy the judges know that they would be creating a SCOTUS Rule 10 split with every circuit and state court of last resort. Under its own binding precedents the 9th circuit says it does not lightly create circuit splits and does so rarely and only when there are substantial reasons for doing so.

Did you notice that in its Answering Brief the state never gave any reason, let alone a substantial one, as to why the Court in my case should create a circuit split?

Did you notice that it is the state's attorney who asked for a remand (not me), without citing any precedent warranting a remand and did so under the pretext that it should be allowed to submit evidence in support of the Open Carry bans which it failed to submit in the district court.

Intermediate scrutiny cuts both ways. If the Court in my appeal decides that the Second Amendment applies even one inch outside the door to my home then the burden shifts to the state to justify the bans under heightened scrutiny. The state's attorney made no attempt to justify the bans in the district court. There was not even a single declaration filed by the state, expert or otherwise, in support of the bans. Under Intermediate Scrutiny, the state loses.

But let us assume that the Court in my case holds that the Second Amendment is limited to the interior of one's home. The Court must still look at the reasons given by the legislature for enacting the bans to see if they were arbitrary or irrational. Under Rational Basis review the court is also required to determine whether or not the reasons given for enacting the bans are still valid today.

The reason for enacting the 1967 Black Panther Loaded Open Carry ban was racial animus which, thanks to the way I crafted my Opening Brief, the court can only evaluate the 1967 ban under rational basis. Normally, racial animus would elevate the level of scrutiny to strict scrutiny. That isn't allowed here in my appeal. The court, after deciding the constitutional questions, will be forced to either hold that racial animus fails the rational basis test or racial animus is not irrational. :D

The Unloaded Open Carry bans present a multitude of problems. Putting aside the legislative intent to "close the loopholes" in the 1967 Black Panther ban, the legislative finding of the California legislature was that the bans are necessary not because people who openly carry unloaded firearms are a danger to the public but because police officers might shoot and kill people and innocent bystanders.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits police from doing this even if firearms are loaded and carried illegally.

And of course if the Court in my case were to uphold that justification, it would create a SCOTUS Rule 10 split with every circuit which has ever published a decision on qualified immunity and police use of deadly force.

The state's argument on appeal is that the laws I challenge can be unconstitutional in every application but if there is just one application in which the law is Constitutional then the law survives (the Salerno Test). The state does not claim that the laws are constitutional under most circumstances or that the laws have a plainly legitimate sweep. SCOTUS has already rejected the Salerno Test in every legal argument I made in the district court and made again on appeal, as has the 9th circuit, which I pointed out in my Reply Brief.

Six years ago this May, I announced my decision to file my lawsuit. I said at the time, and have been saying ever since, for me to lose the 9th circuit court of appeals would have to issue a decision which conflicts with Heller and McDonald (now Baldwin and Caetano as well) and to overturn its own binding precedents. To that I have added SCOTUS Rule 10 splits from other circuits and state courts of last resort which have arisen since my lawsuit was first filed.

Fortunately, Baker v. Kealoha was tossed without creating any harm. The only case which remains is Young v. Hawaii (which is stayed pending the Mandate in Baker). Unfortunately for Mr. Young, his attorney screwed up his appeal. The only thing Mr. Young had standing to challenge on appeal was the denial of his license to carry a handgun in public (openly or concealed). Concealed carry is off the table now because of Peruta (en banc) but instead of asking that Mr. Young be granted a license to (openly carry) a handgun on appeal, his attorney asked the court of appeals for an Order that the law be rewritten, the one thing every 1st year law student knows a court cannot do.

Given that the only relief that Mr. Young asks for on appeal is relief either forfeited by not raising it in the district court or relief which the court cannot grant, Young's appeal will be tossed as well. The only question there is whether or not his case is remanded back to the district court for a do-over.

press1280, unless your purpose is to rattle the self-described astronaut/lawyer's cage until he starts throwing more feces around, if you have any questions about my lawsuit then I suggest that you read the briefs in my appeal. They are at my website here as are the Excerpts of Record and addendum filed on both sides.

The only thing you are going to get from my opponents here is their feces thrown your way. :banana:
 
Last edited:

California Right To Carry

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

No, it isn't. This is OCDO and the owners decide the forum's purpose and so far they have not decided to delegate the power to decide the purpose to you.



Exactly, I wish we had a thousand people like Charlie that were willing to do the same thing, even if they did it poorly. We don't need any more people that only want to be critical of those attempting to move the 2A forward. Our enemies will furnish plenty of criticism. Its time to wonder which camp our dear friend "cocked&locked" belongs in.

Thank you, but my name is Charles. "Charlie" and the other variations are used by my detractors because they think being obnoxious makes them something other than nothing.

I would also like to take the opportunity to point out that the only Second Amendment win in this circuit was an Open Carry win fought by someone who was not a lawyer and fought without the assistance of a lawyer and without the help of any of the so called gun-rights groups, Paul Murphy.

As neither Mr. Murphy or I are attorneys, neither of us has a payday to look forward to at the end of the line. No attorney fees for us. At best, I will receive my filing fees back, some printing costs and perhaps some ancillary expenses. I will never recoup my out of pocket expenses or money I could have made doing something else.

Mr. Murphy fought, and I am fighting, to vindicate our Constitutional rights. My admiration for Mr. Murphy is great. He never studied law and he did not have any supporters helping to defray his costs in his nine year fight.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Thank you, but my name is Charles. "Charlie" and the other variations are used by my detractors because they think being obnoxious makes them something other than nothing.

snipp....


wow, i thought i had seen it all...

a supporter goes out of their way to provide a positive note...

and the recipient tenders what i would, in my humble opinion responds with a giant slap across the face...

nice!!!

ipse
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
Breaking News on Charlie's Infringement Test

In my opening brief I suggested that the Court adopt the corollary to the one-step inquiry it used in Peruta (en banc). If the law infringes on the Second Amendment then it is unconstitutional because the Second Amendment says the right shall not be infringed. What the astronaut/lawyer omits is that I argued that the district court was bound by the two-step inquiry adopted by the 9th circuit in Chovan which is the framework adopted by most of the circuits including the 7th which struck down the bans on carrying loaded and unloaded firearms in incorporated cities, towns and villages.

I said it before, Charlie is the textbook example of why pro se litigants should not be handling complex litigation matters.

I knew what his response was going to be to the "infringement" question and was just waiting for it to demonstrate another mistake amateurs make.

Read his definition of his infringement test (second sentence) and then ask yourself: since every law involving the 2nd Amendment, by definition, "infringes" upon it, then, using Charlie's test, would not every law be unconstitutional? This is exactly the kind of stupid arguments amateurs make all the time.

Regarding all his blabbering about his bullspit legal arguments:

What Charlie fails to understand is that this case does not hinge upon any of his "evidence or legal reasoning". This is not even an open carry case! This case was thrown out because Charlie did not know how to write a proper complaint (referred to as failure to state a cause of action). Don't take my word for it, read the decision. The question before the Court is not whether or not open carry is a constitutional right; the question they are going to answer is, did Charlie write a proper complaint. Clearly, he did not.

How bad is his complaint? So bad that it has a white guy trying to make a racial animus case; that's how bad!

No kidding, you can't make this shiit up. Read the decision!
 
Last edited:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Racially motivated criminal laws are unconstitutional

The unfortunate thing about the Internet is that folks, like in the above post, can claim to be astronaut/lawyers while at the same time hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet.

This particular self-described astronaut/lawyer proved in his post that he is not a lawyer, or if he is one then he is an incompetent lawyer.

It has been nearly 32 years since the US Supreme Court published its decision in Hunter v. Underwood which overturned the disenfranchisement of Victor Underwood (who was White) because the motivation behind the law was racial animus against Blacks.

The 9th circuit court of appeals does not even require that the law be disproportionately enforced and it certainly does not require one to me a member of the class (in this case Blacks) or, as in Underwood, that the law would be constitutional where it not for the racial animus in enacting the law. Otherwise constitutional laws become unconstitutional the moment they are enacted if racial animus is a motivating factor.

For an explanation of how the law works and why I had made a perfect argument against the 1967 Black Panther Loaded Open Carry ban, read the decision in Pacific Shores Properties v. City of Newport Beach, 730 F. 3d 1142 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (2013) beginning at 1159. Keep in mind that the district court judge in my case held that people who legally carry firearms have no Fourth Amendment protection despite the well established law that even those persons who are illegally carrying firearms are protected by the Fourth Amendment so it should come as no surprise that he disregarded longstanding US Supreme Court precedents and binding 9th circuit precedents.

Quoting from Pacific Shores:

"This case demonstrates why requiring anti-discrimination plaintiffs to prove the existence of a better-treated entity would lead to unacceptable results. According to the district court's theory, Plaintiffs in anti-discrimination suits would be unable to demonstrate the discriminatory intent of a defendant that openly admitted its intent to discriminate, so long as the defendant (a) relies on a facially neutral law or policy and (b) is willing to "overdiscriminate" by enforcing the facially neutral law or policy even against similarly-situated individuals who are not members of the disfavored group. Such a rule presents the "grotesque scenario where a[] [defendant] can effectively immunize itself from suit if it is so thorough in its discrimination that all similarly situated [entities] are victimized."" Id at 1159 (italics & emphasis added).

Now take careful note of the reactions to my post.
 
Top