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

OC for ME · Mar 28, 2017

California Right To Carry said:
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.

I fail to connect the text in red to the Pacific Shores Properties case. Is it your strategery to show that municipal anti-2A laws are discriminatory? That the penal code is discriminatory? Or, that the anti-2A laws in California are contrary to current SCOTUS rulings.

cocked&locked · Mar 28, 2017

Wow!

California Right To Carry said:
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.

Wow!!!! Just wow!!!

This guy just constantly and blatantly lies, misreads and misinterprets cases and their holdings.

I don't want to get into a side-discussion about racial animus cases but I will categorically state that not one of the cases he just cited stands for the proposition he claims!

The Court and his opponent had it right when they both politely said he doesn't know what the fuuck he is talking about.

All that bitch-slapping he has received at each step of the way in his case must have really affected his judgement because nobody can naturally be this stupid.

It is impossible to have an intellectual discussion with a misguided legal mental midget. If you want to believe his legal ramblings, then you can do so at your own peril.

My response is simply going to be: the infringement test!

The infringement test is all you need to know about Charlie!

California Right To Carry · Mar 28, 2017

OC for ME said:
I fail to connect the text in red to the Pacific Shores Properties case. Is it your strategery to show that municipal anti-2A laws are discriminatory? That the penal code is discriminatory? Or, that the anti-2A laws in California are contrary to current SCOTUS rulings.

The text in red demonstrates that the district court judge did not care that he was bound by SCOTUS and 9th circuit precedents. Judge Otero and his sidekick magistrate judge Segal made things up as they wen't along. And I mean literally made things up. Judge Otero took a dissent in a voting rights case and added to another decision in which the court held that a law could not be facially challenged but could be broadly challenged to conclude that a law cannot be challenged both facially and as-applied.

The district court judges made up a lot of things which are precluded by SCOTUS and 9th circuit law, most of which the state's attorney did not even try and defend in his answering brief. Obviously, to everyone but my astronaut/lawyer detractors, a law can always be challenged both facially and as-applied. The state's attorney instead argues that I must wait until the laws have been applied against me in order to develop a factual context in which to make an as-applied challenge.

Given that it is also well established that one need not submit himself to criminal prosecution in order to challenge a law, that argument by the state's attorney which seeks to achieve the same result that judge Otero manufactured fails as well.

The City of Redondo Beach and my challenge to its municipal ordinances were voluntarily dismissed by me years ago. Have you not read the appellate briefs in my case?

cocked&locked · Mar 28, 2017

He Don't Know

OC for ME said:
I fail to connect the text in red to the Pacific Shores Properties case. Is it your strategery to show that municipal anti-2A laws are discriminatory? That the penal code is discriminatory? Or, that the anti-2A laws in California are contrary to current SCOTUS rulings.

He does not know what he wants to challenge or how to do it. That is why he cannot write a proper complaint or brief.

Of course you can mount a "facial" or "as applied" challenge to a law. But significantly, and what Charlie does not understand is that, facial challenges are frowned upon and they are each plead differently. Charlie did not plead a proper facial challenge and his "as applied" challenge is a joke because Charlie was white (at least before his appeal) and white guys cannot challenge a law "as applied" based on racial animus. White guys are not part of any protected class! They are one of the few groups remaining who are not part of a protected class.

carracer · Mar 28, 2017

This used to be an interesting read....

cocked&locked · Mar 28, 2017

carracer said:
This used to be an interesting read....

You mean before his blatant lies and misrepresentations were challenged and exposed?

OC for ME · Mar 29, 2017

California Right To Carry said:
The text in red demonstrates that the district court judge did not care that he was bound by SCOTUS and 9th circuit precedents. Judge Otero and his sidekick magistrate judge Segal made things up as they wen't along. And I mean literally made things up. Judge Otero took a dissent in a voting rights case and added to another decision in which the court held that a law could not be facially challenged but could be broadly challenged to conclude that a law cannot be challenged both facially and as-applied.

The district court judges made up a lot of things which are precluded by SCOTUS and 9th circuit law, most of which the state's attorney did not even try and defend in his answering brief. Obviously, to everyone but my astronaut/lawyer detractors, a law can always be challenged both facially and as-applied. The state's attorney instead argues that I must wait until the laws have been applied against me in order to develop a factual context in which to make an as-applied challenge.

Given that it is also well established that one need not submit himself to criminal prosecution in order to challenge a law, that argument by the state's attorney which seeks to achieve the same result that judge Otero manufactured fails as well.

The City of Redondo Beach and my challenge to its municipal ordinances were voluntarily dismissed by me years ago. Have you not read the appellate briefs in my case?

Overturning his ruling should be a slam dunk.

cocked&locked · Mar 29, 2017

OC for ME said:
Overturning his ruling should be a slam dunk.

You are absolutely correct. If Judge Otero is in such flagrant violation of SCOTUS and his own bosses in the 9th Cir., as Charlie claims, then this a case should be an easy victory.

Now let us wait and see who gets bitch-slapped, Mr. Otero or Mr Charlatan.

And I don't want to hear any excuses when Mr. Charlatan gets another ringing in his ear!

utbagpiper · Mar 31, 2017

California Right To Carry said:
"Charlie" and the other variations are used by my detractors because they think being obnoxious makes them something other than nothing.

Such is a common tactic around here.

But for a guy who uses terms like "attorneys/astronauts" to be obnoxious toward or belittle those who have claimed some credentials, hypocrisy is a bit soft of a description for your complaint.

Foropencarry · Apr 1, 2017

I sincerely hopes this guy wins the open carry gun policy in California.
You can read my reason why in the
PERUTA V. SAN DIEGO CERT PETITION - JANUARY 12, 2017
forum that I posted.

California CCW policy only protects police officers, retired police officers, and if somebody you draw your weapon on decides to press charges then you are done.
You are definitely done if its an anti-gun person, because they most likely will press charges

A good defense attorney can put together multiple defense arguments in an open carry gun policy at trial.

I am not an attorney

Sir I really hope you win the open carry gun policy

press1280 · Apr 2, 2017

California Right To Carry said:
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.

I will say though that I highly doubt the racial aspect of this will gain (or lose) a vote on the court. The liberal judges ruling against us in other cases have flat out ignored the argument.
This case will come down to what road the 9th takes on OC. Rule the ban unconstitutional, and stay consistent with Moore, or, become the first appeals court to rule the right is home bound. That is, of course, if SCOTUS doesn't grant cert on Peruta or Norman.

cocked&locked · Apr 2, 2017

Real Lawyer v. Wanabe Lawyer

California Right To Carry said:
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.

Another Lie!

What the District Court found was that a "chamber check" of a firearm on a public street by police did not constitute a "search" triggering 4th Amend. protections. And, even assuming that it was a "search", the search was not unreasonable. That is a huge difference from Mr. Charlatan's claim highlighted above! This type of legal analysis is also the difference between what you get from a real lawyer and what you get from a wanabe lawyer.

Those of you expecting some monumental decision coming out of this case about open carry are going to be very disappointed. As I stated before, at this stage of the litigation, this is not even an open carry case. Keep in mind that all of the discussion about open carry in the Decision was in the context of the reason that Mr. Charlatan did not write a proper complaint. The Court was not actually deciding the constitutionality of any open carry issues. Mr. Charlatan's appeal fails miserably because he never addresses why his complaint is legally adequate! Instead he wants to litigate the substantive issues; which are not the issues in this appeal! If Mr. Charlatan had gone to law school and/or had a few years of litigation experience he would understand that his case was thrown out for procedural reasons, not substantive reasons (although he also has major substantive problems as well).

No substantive issues were ever litigated or decided in this case. This case was thrown out in its infancy because Mr. Charlatan did not write a proper complaint. The appellate court decision is going to center around this issue, not any open carry issues. The BEST CASE RESULT for Mr. Charlatan (which is never going to happen!) is that the court finds that, at least, some issues in his complaint were plead properly and therefore the case should be remanded back for the litigation on the substantive issues to begin. But as I said, that is not going to happen!

The bitch-slapping will resume very soon when his request for oral argument and en banc hearing are both denied! This will be the tell-tale sign of just where his case is headed. After all, if this case was as monumental as Charlie claims, wouldn't the Court want to hear some oral argument on it?

I have tried to avoid it, but for the reasons stated above and the power vested in me, I declare that Mr. Charlatan is hereby internetly disbarred!!!!! LOL

cocked&locked · Apr 2, 2017

Nightmare said:
But the truth is that YOU just made the Iggy List.

I just noticed a half-dozen versions of "cocked and locked" and that some of them are corrupted to not be effective on my Iggy List. I'll mention the rules violation to the moderator.

Something can be false because the proponent is innocently mistaken or intentionally trying to deceive. In this case, since Charlie has held himself out as an expert in the field, when he states something false, a logical conclusion could be that he is doing so intentionally. Additionally, when he repeatedly does the same thing after being called on it various times by various people, the only logical conclusion is that he IS doing so intentionally. Henceforth, the word LIE is appropriate, in my opinion!

California Right To Carry · Apr 2, 2017

press1280 said:
I will say though that I highly doubt the racial aspect of this will gain (or lose) a vote on the court. The liberal judges ruling against us in other cases have flat out ignored the argument.
This case will come down to what road the 9th takes on OC. Rule the ban unconstitutional, and stay consistent with Moore, or, become the first appeals court to rule the right is home bound. That is, of course, if SCOTUS doesn't grant cert on Peruta or Norman.

press1280, read my appellant opening brief and you will discover that I explicitly forfeited any race based challenge and, for that matter, any argument or challenge the appellate panel might discern which would allow the court to avoid the Second Amendment questions before the court.

Whether or not the racial aspect would have gained or lost a vote on the court is irrelevant in my appeal as it will be irrelevant to SCOTUS.

cocked&locked · Apr 7, 2017

Leave it to Charlie to again cite to cases that do not support his position! This is a habit with this guy.

The following below was submitted by the State in his case yesterday.

300 SOUTH SPRING STREET, SUITE 1702 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Public: (213) 897-2000 Telephone: (213) 897-6505 Facsimile: (213) 897-5775 E-Mail: Jonathan.Eisenberg@doj.ca.gov
April 6, 2017
Molly Dwyer Clerk of the Court U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit 95 Seventh St. San Francisco, CA 94103-1526
RE: Nichols v. Brown, U.S.C.A., 9th Circuit, Case No. 14-55873
Dear Ms. Dwyer:
This letter responds to the March 17, 2017, letter that Charles Nichols submitted in the above-entitled case, under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), concerning the recent decision of the Florida Supreme Court in Norman v. Florida, Case No. SC15-650. Mr. Nichols’s cites to the dissenting opinion in Norman more than to the majority opinion. Nonetheless, the majority opinion contains two noteworthy parts. First, citing several of the same history and law sources as the California Attorney General’s Office has cited in the appellate briefing in this Nichols case, Norman explains that “most states outside of the South in the mid-nineteenth century prohibited in most instances the carrying of firearms in public, whether carried concealed or openly,” and also holds, “We reject the notion that the historical right protected by the Second Amendment is the right to open carry.” (P. 21 & nn. 11, 12 (citing three case decisions, six statutes, and one law-review article; emphasis added).) Second, for Florida’s open-carry laws (part of an overall public-carry statutory scheme that is admittedly different from California’s public-carry statutory scheme), Norman holds that intermediate scrutiny is the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply (p. 38), and that the laws withstand intermediate scrutiny (pp. 42, 47).

countryclubjoe · Apr 7, 2017

California Right To Carry said:
press1280, read my appellant opening brief and you will discover that I explicitly forfeited any race based challenge and, for that matter, any argument or challenge the appellate panel might discern which would allow the court to avoid the Second Amendment questions before the court.

Whether or not the racial aspect would have gained or lost a vote on the court is irrelevant in my appeal as it will be irrelevant to SCOTUS.

Why did you not simply argue your case based on McDonald V City of Chicago which was settled by the Supremes in 2010?
Pro se's should step lightly in attempting to set new precedent, the easier route would have been to rely on McDonald in my humble opinion.

Good luck in your fight.

Regards
CCJ

California Right To Carry · Apr 7, 2017

The State dropped most of its arguments in defense of the Open Carry bans.

countryclubjoe said:
Why did you not simply argue your case based on McDonald V City of Chicago which was settled by the Supremes in 2010?
Pro se's should step lightly in attempting to set new precedent, the easier route would have been to rely on McDonald in my humble opinion.

Good luck in your fight.

Regards
CCJ

Lawsuits are not limited to a single legal argument. Given that a plaintiff typically gets but one appeal, it would be foolish to limit one's argument in the district court and court of appeals to a single argument.

McDonald was the new precedent when I filed my lawsuit back in 2011. Success with my 2nd Amendment argument would also create a new precedent. When my lawsuit was filed, I did not have any SCOTUS Rule 10 splits and I did not think I would still be litigating a case into its sixth year and beyond. A race based equal protection claim was the easier route and it still is.

Raced based Equal Protection precedents date back to shortly after the 14th Amendment was enacted. When I first filed my lawsuit I would have been quite happy for a quick and easy win on equal protection grounds alone and based on binding SCOTUS and 9th circuit precedents, I should have won in the district court. The state's attorney told me during my deposition that he expected me to win with my race based equal protection argument but added "So what?" We'll just reenact the bans and you (I) won't have the Black Panthers as an excuse the next time.

But now that I have spent so much time, money and effort on this lawsuit, coupled with the fact that I now have multiple SCOTUS Rule 10 splits on the Second Amendment (including Norman v. State which came out after my appeal was fully briefed), I framed my opening brief so that the court of appeals will have to decide the Second Amendment questions.

It was a surprise to both of us when the district court judge decided that I cannot bring a race based equal protection claim unless I claim that the laws I challenge were enforced against me because of my race.

First of all, that is not how it works. The only two things I was required to argue in this circuit is 1) that the motivation for enacting the laws involved a suspect classification, which was easy given that I am challenging the 1967 Black Panther Loaded Open Carry ban as well as the two Unloaded Open Carry bans which were enacted to "close the loophole(s)" in the 1967 ban and, 2) I have an ongoing injury because of the ban.

Also, these are criminal laws I am challenging. The only way I can claim that they have been enforced against me is for me to be arrested and/or prosecuted, convicted fined or imprisoned.

No Federal court in this country requires that one violate a law, let alone be arrested for violating a law, in order to challenge the constitutionality of the law. The district court judge assigned to my case, Otero, came to his own conclusions of law which conflict with SCOTUS and this circuit. In Judge Otero's view, no pre-enforcement challenges to criminal laws are allowed.

Most of Judge Otero's decision the state's attorney did not even try and defend on appeal. Yesterday, the state's attorney filed a response to one of my FRAP 28(j) letters regarding Flanagan v. Harris in which he is also the attorney. Read the state's answering brief then read my FRAP 28(j) letter then read the state's response:

"Mr. Nichols’s may create mistaken impressions about the position of the California
Attorney General's Office in litigation about the constitutionality of firearm regulations.

The AGO does not contend that Mr. Nichols has to violate California’s open-carry
statutes to have standing to challenge their constitutionality. Rather, the AGO concedes that Mr.
Nichols has standing to pursue his lawsuit, including the appeal.

The AGO does not contend that Mr. Nichols’s appeal is defective because it seeks a
ruling on the question of whether people not barred by law from possessing firearms have the
right, under the Second Amendment, to carry firearms openly in public. The AGO has
emphasized the narrowness and specificity of the question presented, but has not contended that
the way that Mr. Nichols has framed his case is improper."

In short, the state has now conceded that contrary to Judge Otero's decision: 1) I can challenge the lawsuit both facially and as applied, 2) I do have standing to challenge the laws and 3) I have properly framed my case.

All that remains now is a de novo review by the court of appeals on each of my seven questions raised on appeal. Particularly the Second Amendment question which the court must answer in lieu of all others.

If the court of appeals concludes that I have a Second Amendment right to step even one inch outside the door of my home into the curtilage of my home carrying a loaded firearm for the purpose of self-defense then I win my challenge against the Loaded Open Carry ban.

If the court of appeals concludes that I have a Second Amendment right to openly carry modern, unloaded firearms outside of my home then I win my challenge against the two Unloaded Open Carry bans.

If the court of appeals concludes that the Second Amendment right extends beyond the doors to my home then I win my challenge against California's handgun Loaded Open Carry licensing laws because fundamental, enumerated rights cannot be allowed or denied solely on the basis of residency in one county but not another.

And if I lose then I will have multiple SCOTUS Rule 10 splits which is something Peruta did not have when it filed cert and by the time it finally got one (Norman v. State) it was too late for Peruta.

cocked&locked · Apr 7, 2017

Same old (and wrong) story!

California Right To Carry said:
Lawsuits are not limited to a single legal argument. Given that a plaintiff typically gets but one appeal, it would be foolish to limit one's argument in the district court and court of appeals to a single argument.

McDonald was the new precedent when I filed my lawsuit back in 2011. Success with my 2nd Amendment argument would also create a new precedent. When my lawsuit was filed, I did not have any SCOTUS Rule 10 splits and I did not think I would still be litigating a case into its sixth year and beyond. A race based equal protection claim was the easier route and it still is.

Raced based Equal Protection precedents date back to shortly after the 14th Amendment was enacted. When I first filed my lawsuit I would have been quite happy for a quick and easy win on equal protection grounds alone and based on binding SCOTUS and 9th circuit precedents, I should have won in the district court. The state's attorney told me during my deposition that he expected me to win with my race based equal protection argument but added "So what?" We'll just reenact the bans and you (I) won't have the Black Panthers as an excuse the next time.

But now that I have spent so much time, money and effort on this lawsuit, coupled with the fact that I now have multiple SCOTUS Rule 10 splits on the Second Amendment (including Norman v. State which came out after my appeal was fully briefed), I framed my opening brief so that the court of appeals will have to decide the Second Amendment questions.

Always the same bs and false legal analysis. Do you have anything new?

It was a surprise to both of us when the district court judge decided that I cannot bring a race based equal protection claim unless I claim that the laws I challenge were enforced against me because of my race.

First of all, that is not how it works. The only two things I was required to argue in this circuit is 1) that the motivation for enacting the laws involved a suspect classification, which was easy given that I am challenging the 1967 Black Panther Loaded Open Carry ban as well as the two Unloaded Open Carry bans which were enacted to "close the loophole(s)" in the 1967 ban and, 2) I have an ongoing injury because of the ban.

Also, these are criminal laws I am challenging. The only way I can claim that they have been enforced against me is for me to be arrested and/or prosecuted, convicted fined or imprisoned.

No Federal court in this country requires that one violate a law, let alone be arrested for violating a law, in order to challenge the constitutionality of the law. The district court judge assigned to my case, Otero, came to his own conclusions of law which conflict with SCOTUS and this circuit. In Judge Otero's view, no pre-enforcement challenges to criminal laws are allowed.

Most of Judge Otero's decision the state's attorney did not even try and defend on appeal. Yesterday, the state's attorney filed a response to one of my FRAP 28(j) letters regarding Flanagan v. Harris in which he is also the attorney. Read the state's answering brief then read my FRAP 28(j) letter then read the state's response:

"Mr. Nichols’s may create mistaken impressions about the position of the California
Attorney General's Office in litigation about the constitutionality of firearm regulations.

The AGO does not contend that Mr. Nichols has to violate California’s open-carry
statutes to have standing to challenge their constitutionality. Rather, the AGO concedes that Mr.
Nichols has standing to pursue his lawsuit, including the appeal.

The AGO does not contend that Mr. Nichols’s appeal is defective because it seeks a
ruling on the question of whether people not barred by law from possessing firearms have the
right, under the Second Amendment, to carry firearms openly in public. The AGO has
emphasized the narrowness and specificity of the question presented, but has not contended that
the way that Mr. Nichols has framed his case is improper."

In short, the state has now conceded that contrary to Judge Otero's decision: 1) I can challenge the lawsuit both facially and as applied, 2) I do have standing to challenge the laws and 3) I have properly framed my case.

All that remains now is a de novo review by the court of appeals on each of my seven questions raised on appeal. Particularly the Second Amendment question which the court must answer in lieu of all others.

If the court of appeals concludes that I have a Second Amendment right to step even one inch outside the door of my home into the curtilage of my home carrying a loaded firearm for the purpose of self-defense then I win my challenge against the Loaded Open Carry ban.

If the court of appeals concludes that I have a Second Amendment right to openly carry modern, unloaded firearms outside of my home then I win my challenge against the two Unloaded Open Carry bans.

If the court of appeals concludes that the Second Amendment right extends beyond the doors to my home then I win my challenge against California's handgun Loaded Open Carry licensing laws because fundamental, enumerated rights cannot be allowed or denied solely on the basis of residency in one county but not another.

And if I lose then I will have multiple SCOTUS Rule 10 splits which is something Peruta did not have when it filed cert and by the time it finally got one (Norman v. State) it was too late for Peruta.

Always the same old and wrong bs legal analysis. Do you ever have anything new? I guess you think that if your repeat it enough somebody will believe you.

countryclubjoe · Apr 7, 2017

California Right To Carry said:
Lawsuits are not limited to a single legal argument. Given that a plaintiff typically gets but one appeal, it would be foolish to limit one's argument in the district court and court of appeals to a single argument.

McDonald was the new precedent when I filed my lawsuit back in 2011. Success with my 2nd Amendment argument would also create a new precedent. When my lawsuit was filed, I did not have any SCOTUS Rule 10 splits and I did not think I would still be litigating a case into its sixth year and beyond. A race based equal protection claim was the easier route and it still is.

Raced based Equal Protection precedents date back to shortly after the 14th Amendment was enacted. When I first filed my lawsuit I would have been quite happy for a quick and easy win on equal protection grounds alone and based on binding SCOTUS and 9th circuit precedents, I should have won in the district court. The state's attorney told me during my deposition that he expected me to win with my race based equal protection argument but added "So what?" We'll just reenact the bans and you (I) won't have the Black Panthers as an excuse the next time.

But now that I have spent so much time, money and effort on this lawsuit, coupled with the fact that I now have multiple SCOTUS Rule 10 splits on the Second Amendment (including Norman v. State which came out after my appeal was fully briefed), I framed my opening brief so that the court of appeals will have to decide the Second Amendment questions.

It was a surprise to both of us when the district court judge decided that I cannot bring a race based equal protection claim unless I claim that the laws I challenge were enforced against me because of my race.

First of all, that is not how it works. The only two things I was required to argue in this circuit is 1) that the motivation for enacting the laws involved a suspect classification, which was easy given that I am challenging the 1967 Black Panther Loaded Open Carry ban as well as the two Unloaded Open Carry bans which were enacted to "close the loophole(s)" in the 1967 ban and, 2) I have an ongoing injury because of the ban.

Also, these are criminal laws I am challenging. The only way I can claim that they have been enforced against me is for me to be arrested and/or prosecuted, convicted fined or imprisoned.

No Federal court in this country requires that one violate a law, let alone be arrested for violating a law, in order to challenge the constitutionality of the law. The district court judge assigned to my case, Otero, came to his own conclusions of law which conflict with SCOTUS and this circuit. In Judge Otero's view, no pre-enforcement challenges to criminal laws are allowed.

Most of Judge Otero's decision the state's attorney did not even try and defend on appeal. Yesterday, the state's attorney filed a response to one of my FRAP 28(j) letters regarding Flanagan v. Harris in which he is also the attorney. Read the state's answering brief then read my FRAP 28(j) letter then read the state's response:

"Mr. Nichols’s may create mistaken impressions about the position of the California
Attorney General's Office in litigation about the constitutionality of firearm regulations.

The AGO does not contend that Mr. Nichols has to violate California’s open-carry
statutes to have standing to challenge their constitutionality. Rather, the AGO concedes that Mr.
Nichols has standing to pursue his lawsuit, including the appeal.

The AGO does not contend that Mr. Nichols’s appeal is defective because it seeks a
ruling on the question of whether people not barred by law from possessing firearms have the
right, under the Second Amendment, to carry firearms openly in public. The AGO has
emphasized the narrowness and specificity of the question presented, but has not contended that
the way that Mr. Nichols has framed his case is improper."

In short, the state has now conceded that contrary to Judge Otero's decision: 1) I can challenge the lawsuit both facially and as applied, 2) I do have standing to challenge the laws and 3) I have properly framed my case.

All that remains now is a de novo review by the court of appeals on each of my seven questions raised on appeal. Particularly the Second Amendment question which the court must answer in lieu of all others.

If the court of appeals concludes that I have a Second Amendment right to step even one inch outside the door of my home into the curtilage of my home carrying a loaded firearm for the purpose of self-defense then I win my challenge against the Loaded Open Carry ban.

If the court of appeals concludes that I have a Second Amendment right to openly carry modern, unloaded firearms outside of my home then I win my challenge against the two Unloaded Open Carry bans.

If the court of appeals concludes that the Second Amendment right extends beyond the doors to my home then I win my challenge against California's handgun Loaded Open Carry licensing laws because fundamental, enumerated rights cannot be allowed or denied solely on the basis of residency in one county but not another.

And if I lose then I will have multiple SCOTUS Rule 10 splits which is something Peruta did not have when it filed cert and by the time it finally got one (Norman v. State) it was too late for Peruta.

Again in my opinion it is much simpler for a Pro Se to argue based on one case precedent, in your case,( McDonald).. As opposed to arguing multi cases. For Pro se's simpler is better... However you must do what you feel comfortable doing..

As already stated, I wish you the very best, your efforts are indeed an inspiration to all that admire grit and moxie.

Regards
CCJ

Robin47 · Apr 7, 2017

cocked&locked said:
Wow!!!! Just wow!!!

This guy just constantly and blatantly lies, misreads and misinterprets cases and their holdings.

I don't want to get into a side-discussion about racial animus cases but I will categorically state that not one of the cases he just cited stands for the proposition he claims!

The Court and his opponent had it right when they both politely said he doesn't know what the fuuck he is talking about.

All that bitch-slapping he has received at each step of the way in his case must have really affected his judgement because nobody can naturally be this stupid.

It is impossible to have an intellectual discussion with a misguided legal mental midget. If you want to believe his legal ramblings, then you can do so at your own peril.

My response is simply going to be: the infringement test!

The infringement test is all you need to know about Charlie!

legal definition of infringment, From Blacks law dictionary, What is INFRINGEMENT?
A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a law, regulation, contract, or right. Used especially of invasions of the rights secured by patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co. v. Jackson, 112 Fed. 140, 50 C. C. A. 159, 55 L. R. A. 092; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co., 80 Fed. 721, 20 C. C. A. 107.

Law Dictionary: What is INFRINGEMENT? definition of INFRINGEMENT (Black's Law Dictionary)

Infringement
The encroachment, breach, or violation of a right, law, regulation, or contract.
The term is most frequently used in reference to the invasion of rights secured by Copyright, patent, or trademark. The unauthorized manufacture, sale, or distribution of an item protected by a copyright, patent, or trademark constitutes an infringement.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
infringement .

Basicallly it means to not mess with in any form or fashion, hands off

Robin47

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

Regular Member

Member

Regular Member

Member

Regular Member

Member

Regular Member

Member

Banned

Newbie

Regular Member

Member

Member

Regular Member

Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Member

Regular Member

Regular Member