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

Robin47 said:

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

Click to expand...

Yeah, but your definition, like Charlie's test, does not advance the ball in terms of helping us distinguish between constitutional gun laws and unconstitutional ones. You do admit that there can be constitutional gun laws, correct?

Charlie advocated for a test which currently only exists in his own mind. Don't be a victim of his delusional ramblings. You can't help crazy. Know what I mean?

cocked&locked said:

You do admit that there can be constitutional gun laws, correct?

Click to expand...

In my opinion there are no constitutional laws having to do with MERE possession or carrying of personal weapons in a safe way. Perhaps if the state has some "sensitive" areas, such as prison, where armed agents guard and maintain a secure perimeter at every accessible entrance, they should be able to bar visitors from carrying. Same goes for courtrooms, etc. The state and federal constitutions recognize a preexisting right to life, liberty, property, and bearing arms by virtue of our "human-ness".

That being said, in the corrupted government kourts of today, Charles' Open Carry case is bolstered by the fact that most (not all) state supreme courts and the SCOTUS have said that open carry is the right, not concealed carry. This is because criminals carry concealed, generally, to gain secret advantages. So, because someone MIGHT poop in their pants, we all have to wear diapers. Which is why 37 states require a license to carry concealed weapons.

77zach said:

In my opinion there are no constitutional laws having to do with MERE possession or carrying of personal weapons in a safe way. Perhaps if the state has some "sensitive" areas, such as prison, where armed agents guard and maintain a secure perimeter at every accessible entrance, they should be able to bar visitors from carrying. Same goes for courtrooms, etc. The state and federal constitutions recognize a preexisting right to life, liberty, property, and bearing arms by virtue of our "human-ness".

That being said, in the corrupted government kourts of today, Charles' Open Carry case is bolstered by the fact that most (not all) state supreme courts and the SCOTUS have said that open carry is the right, not concealed carry. This is because criminals carry concealed, generally, to gain secret advantages. So, because someone MIGHT poop in their pants, we all have to wear diapers. Which is why 37 states require a license to carry concealed weapons.

Click to expand...

1) Charlie doesn't have a "case". He doesn't have enough talent to get beyond writing a proper complaint.

2) The Constitution does not distinguish between open and conceal carry. You are falling into the same trap as Charlie by confusing "tradition" with the actual core right.

3) SCOTUS did not say that open carry is the right, not concealed carry! Go back and look at Heller again. Nobody but Charlie and the California courts (two sides of the same delusional coin) interpret Heller that way!

cocked&locked said:

1) Charlie doesn't have a "case". He doesn't have enough talent to get beyond writing a proper complaint.

2) The Constitution does not distinguish between open and conceal carry. You are falling into the same trap as Charlie by confusing "tradition" with the actual core right.

3) SCOTUS did not say that open carry is the right, not concealed carry! Go back and look at Heller again. Nobody but Charlie and the California courts (two sides of the same delusional coin) interpret Heller that way!

Click to expand...

I know they didn't explicitly say that, but I do believe it is the implication. Of course, it doesn't really matter. Even if Norman or Charles' case were to go to SCOTUS there is nothing keeping the Kourt from saying whatever it wants to. And 5 "justices" are not going to say there is a right to openly carry outside the home because..... well, guns are scary and make loud noises. People forget Roberts is a "Progressive" so there's 5 no votes right there even if it was heard.

Charlie gets the first of many

Charlie has now begun to receive the first of several bitch-slappings (which I predicted) when the Court denied his request for an initial en banc proceeding. Next, the 3 judge panel will deny his appeal and that will be followed by the en banc panel again denying his request (should he be stupid enough to make it again).

I am currently scheduled to be in Cali the week of 6/18. For the collective sum of $5,000 donated to my favorite charity, I would be happy to debate Charlie on Livestream for 60 min on any three topics concerning his case. Do I have any takers? Charlie, you up for the challenge? You sure talk a good story! I will even let you pick the topics.

Cocked,

Where is your legal case?

OC4me said:

Cocked,

Where is your legal case?

Click to expand...

I am not the one that claims to have one. But if I did, I would not be stupid enough to bring it in the 9th Cir. Be thirsty my friend!

That is the good news. The bad news is that Charlie does not have a case either. And for a small donation to my favorite charity I am willing to expose him on live stream for the charlatan that he is. Can I count on you for a fifty dollar donation?

cocked&locked said:

I am not the one that claims to have one. But if I did, I would not be stupid enough to bring it in the 9th Cir. Be thirsty my friend!

That is the good news. The bad news is that Charlie does not have a case either. And for a small donation to my favorite charity I am willing to expose him on live stream for the charlatan that he is. Can I count on you for a fifty dollar donation?

Click to expand...

How do you feel about Norman? I predicted the outcome down to the wording by the progressive statist juctices of the Fl Supreme Kourt. I don't think SCOTUS will grant it to be heard. Your thoughts?

cocked&locked said:

I am not the one that claims to have one. But if I did, I would not be stupid enough to bring it in the 9th Cir. Be thirsty my friend!

That is the good news. The bad news is that Charlie does not have a case either. And for a small donation to my favorite charity I am willing to expose him on live stream for the charlatan that he is. Can I count on you for a fifty dollar donation?

Click to expand...

Where would you bring the case?

cocked&locked said:

I am not the one that claims to have one. But if I did, I would not be stupid enough to bring it in the 9th Cir. Be thirsty my friend!

That is the good news. The bad news is that Charlie does not have a case either. And for a small donation to my favorite charity I am willing to expose him on live stream for the charlatan that he is. Can I count on you for a fifty dollar donation?

Click to expand...

No.

Oral Argument in Nichols v. Brown Tentatively Scheduled for week of November 6th

I see the moderator still has not deleted the attacks on me made by the mentally unbalanced and I suspect that will be true with their responses to this post as well.

I have not posted here for a while for obvious reasons, not the least being there seems to be very few supporters of Open Carry posting here.

In any event, I discovered that oral arguments are tentatively scheduled in my California Open Carry appeal for the first week of November. Keep in mind that it is very rare for oral arguments to take place in the 9th circuit court of appeals and unheard of when one of the parties who will be arguing the case is not an attorney. Apparently, my briefs persuaded the powers that be that I can hold my own during oral arguments which, frankly, won't be that hard to do given the pathetic arguments made by the so called gun-rights attorneys who have preceded me in their failed and frivolous concealed carry lawsuits.

How did I find out ahead of time? I filed a motion on July 4th for my appeal to be heard before the same panel and on the same day as the only other related Open Carry appeal in this circuit, Young v. Hawaii. The court contacted the attorneys in that case and asked them if they were willing for oral arguments in their appeal to be heard alongside of mine the week of November 6th.

According to one of Young's attorneys the lawyer for the Hawaii county said "No!" and gave as his reason his not wanting to travel to the mainland.

My motion is still pending. Under the rules of the court they can schedule oral arguments in our cases to take place anywhere within the circuit at anytime. Both cases might be scheduled together, somewhere (probably San Francisco) or heard separately.

Oral arguments in Hawaii take place just three times a year. If they do not take place in Young v. Hawaii during the month of October then they won't take place until next year.

If Young v. Hawaii oral argument is to take place in October then we will know by the end of this month. We will know the exact date and place oral arguments will take place in both of our appeals six weeks ahead of time.

Given the severe and numerous defects in the Young v. Hawaii case, it is unlikely that the court will reach the Second Amendment question in his appeal.

Despite my detractors claims to the contrary, there are no standing issues or other defects in my appeal which the state has already conceded. And because I know how to write an Opening Brief, the court cannot escape the Second Amendment questions raised in my appeal.

And as of today, my appeal will be argued and taken under submission the week of November 6th in L.A.

I really hope your belief in yourself is justified. I did law school Cum Laude and learned the main thing taught there is how to think.

If you can do that, you might be ok. But the other things they teach are also very important.

Hope it goes well.

Nemo

Va_Nemo said:

I really hope your belief in yourself is justified. I did law school Cum Laude and learned the main thing taught there is how to think.

If you can do that, you might be ok. But the other things they teach are also very important.

Hope it goes well.

Nemo

Click to expand...

It's going to come down to the panel.

Va_Nemo said:

I really hope your belief in yourself is justified. I did law school Cum Laude and learned the main thing taught there is how to think.

If you can do that, you might be ok. But the other things they teach are also very important.

Hope it goes well.

Nemo

Click to expand...

Which law school? When?

I had an exchange of emails with a prominent law professor at UCLA suggesting that he was in a better position than I to fix the long outdated law school curriculum. For example, someone can graduate law school and pass the bar without ever having taken Logic 101, Physics 101, Chemistry 101, or an applied mathematics courses.

He said that nothing could be done, that students were expected to learn things on their own.

The one thing that law school does not teach one is how to think.

If oral arguments ultimately take place then I will have certain advantages over all of the lawyers for the so called gun-rights groups:

I won't lie.

If I don't know the answer to a question then I will say that "I don't know, but I will be happy to research the question and file a response in writing."

I will concede nothing during oral arguments.

In regards to the Second Amendment, I will not argue anything which conflicts with Baldwin, Heller, McDonald, or Caetano. I will leave that up to the state's attorney.

In regards to the Fourth Amendment, even the most anti-gun liberal circuit judges aren't going to reverse their own decisions regarding firearms, reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

California Right To Carry said:

Which law school? When?

Click to expand...

Thomas M. Cooley Law School, Lansing Michigan, Josiah Turner Class, 1991.

Sufficient?

Nemo

California Right To Carry said:

The one thing that law school does not teach one is how to think.

Click to expand...

When/Where did you graduate? Or is your belief based on what you have been told?

Mine is based on what I experienced and learned myself.

Like I said, I hope all goes well.

Nemo

California Right To Carry said:

For example, someone can graduate law school and pass the bar without ever having taken Logic 101, Physics 101, Chemistry 101, or an applied mathematics courses.

Click to expand...

I did just that. Logic might have been helpful. Physics, Chemistry or Applied Math would not have been.

Nemo

California Right To Carry said:

If I don't know the answer to a question then I will say that "I don't know, but I will be happy to research the question and file a response in writing."

Click to expand...

Don't expect that to be pleasantly received. And it will open you be thoroughly split open, gutted, tied up and roasted on a spit by a judge that will know more than you ever hope or think you could learn. Which will likely happen anyway.

And I will leave it at that, and reply to this thread no more.

Like I said earlier. Good luck

Nemo

Va_Nemo said:

Don't expect that to be pleasantly received. And it will open you be thoroughly split open, gutted, tied up and roasted on a spit by a judge that will know more than you ever hope or think you could learn. Which will likely happen anyway.

And I will leave it at that, and reply to this thread no more.

Like I said earlier. Good luck

Nemo

Click to expand...

I should have emphasized that my not being an attorney gives me an advantage in that my livelihood does not depend upon my placating judges for fear that I might be before them again arguing another case for some other client. One can only be "split open, gutted, tied up and roasted on a spit by a judge" if one allows it.

I won't allow it.

Another thing that they failed to teach you in law school is that if you reject the premise of the question then give an answer you want entered into the record instead. If the judge doesn't like the answer and repeats the question then you tell him that you reject the premise of his question.

Not all attorneys are obsequious pipsqueaks when standing before a hostile court. Give a listen to John Parker Sweeney during the en banc oral argument in Kolbe v. Hogan.

I have a slightly different style from Mr. Sweeney as one might have gleaned from my posts here and in my interview on Reason.TV.

Should oral argument take place in my appeal then you can see for yourself via the 9th circuit court of appeals YouTube channel.

Va_Nemo said:

I did just that. Logic might have been helpful. Physics, Chemistry or Applied Math would not have been.

Nemo

Click to expand...

You didn't take the classes and yet you state that they would not have been helpful.

I hear that often.