• 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.

Concern over SAF and CGF Lawsuit

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
Here is a quote from Calguns. I think it's pretty accurate.

Forget the world you want. Here is the world you are likely to get:

RKBA is not limited to the home, but some compelling interest exists outside the home in limited circumstances
Sensitive places are those where the gubbermint takes more than token responsibility for your security: if they take your authority to defend yourself, they must accept some responsibility for the outcome. This limits the places they can call 'sensitive' if only because they cannot take responsibility for all government places.
Civilian firearm carry can be restricted from private property, including merchants.
There will be no massive backlash against those who put up "no carry" signs in coastal urban areas.
Eventually some shop owners will tire of policing those who give them money. What starts as a political statement eventually becomes a shoulder-shrug "who cares?" and most eventually tire of the fight. Some will persevere. Major chains get over it and move on.
Anti-gun politicians will still be anti-gun but will move on to other issues because the big fights were won in our favor. Mostly.
The federal legislature will step in and set some new national rules on carry, sales and transport of firearms that supposedly comport with the big decisions. Why? Because Congress abhors a vacuum and right now there is no national carry standard.
People on gun boards will continue to lament about our sorry existence, even while they can carry a loaded firearm into a bank in Beverly Hills.
 

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
Sons of Liberty, what you seem to fail to realize is, Alan Gura is playing to win. Strategy, not tactics. If we go for open carry of suppressed full auto from the start, we'll lose it all. We have to pick our battles wisely to win the most we can in the long run. In California, that means we'll get CC long before OC.
 

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
638
Location
Riverside, California, USA
Sons of Liberty, what you seem to fail to realize is, Alan Gura is playing to win. Strategy, not tactics. If we go for open carry of suppressed full auto from the start, we'll lose it all. We have to pick our battles wisely to win the most we can in the long run. In California, that means we'll get CC long before OC.

I fully realize what is going on here. CC is not open carry. It's SAF and CGF compromising the 2A rights of others for CC. It's not about suppressed full auto...it never has been...that's rhetoric. If CC is achieved, you won't see SAF and CGF "waste" their resources on OC. It's not in their blood.

It wouldn't surprise me if SAF and CGF are secretly encouraging the passage of AB144 with the CA legislature to help their case.
 

wildhawker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
113
Location
California, USA
The continuing unfounded accusations are frivolous and demeaning to those who offer much of their lives to the advancement of 2A liberties.

If you think that CGF or SAF has done any such thing are you imply in your post, then please do request every single legislative record and post your evidence here. I'll wait.

You're desperate for attention, that someone, somewhere, would take up with you against those of us fighting for OUR rights. Please consider very carefully before responding with why I would invest myself in a cause intended to secure only half a right. Then please tell me when you're going to offer our cause, the People's right to keep and bear arms, something of merit beyond a few virulent keystrokes.

-Brandon

I fully realize what is going on here. CC is not open carry. It's SAF and CGF compromising the 2A rights of others for CC. It's not about suppressed full auto...it never has been...that's rhetoric. If CC is achieved, you won't see SAF and CGF "waste" their resources on OC. It's not in their blood.

It wouldn't surprise me if SAF and CGF are secretly encouraging the passage of AB144 with the CA legislature to help their case.
 

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
638
Location
Riverside, California, USA
The continuing unfounded accusations are frivolous and demeaning to those who offer much of their lives to the advancement of 2A liberties.

If you think that CGF or SAF has done any such thing are you imply in your post, then please do request every single legislative record and post your evidence here. I'll wait.

-Brandon

Here you go Brandon:

...If winning the right to arms requires fratricide, then we'll be the adults in the room.

In fact, I begin to wonder if Charles Nichols is an LCAV plant. It would be a perfect campaign by them to neuter the effect of a right to bear arms in California by forcing the order of operations to go in the wrong direction.

-Gene

My suspicions are not frivilous nor demeaning.
 

wildhawker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
113
Location
California, USA
Please answer me this: were we wrong to suspect Charles Nichols of being a very real risk to our cause?

I look forward to you defending someone who has apparently made very tangible moves to damage open carry. Meanwhile, we'll continue being the only organization to have defended open carriers against criminal charges and file Fed lawsuits that matter to your (our) interests with competent and experienced civil rights/gun lawyers.

It's unfortunate that you really have no interest in listening, learning, or retaining information. I'd prefer to think it a matter of your own choice than of capacity.

-Brandon

Here you go Brandon:

...If winning the right to arms requires fratricide, then we'll be the adults in the room.

In fact, I begin to wonder if Charles Nichols is an LCAV plant. It would be a perfect campaign by them to neuter the effect of a right to bear arms in California by forcing the order of operations to go in the wrong direction.

-Gene

My suspicions are not frivilous nor demeaning.
 

WCrawford

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
592
Location
Nashville, Tennessee, United States
Please answer me this: were we wrong to suspect Charles Nichols of being a very real risk to our cause?

I look forward to you defending someone who has apparently made very tangible moves to damage open carry. Meanwhile, we'll continue being the only organization to have defended open carriers against criminal charges and file Fed lawsuits that matter to your (our) interests with competent and experienced civil rights/gun lawyers.

It's unfortunate that you really have no interest in listening, learning, or retaining information. I'd prefer to think it a matter of your own choice than of capacity.

-Brandon

I'll give you guys the benefit of the doubt... when you stop sabotaging anyone who would fight for their liberties against your wishes.
 

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
638
Location
Riverside, California, USA
Please answer me this: were we wrong to suspect Charles Nichols of being a very real risk to our cause?


-Brandon

Yes, Brandon, you are wrong.

In addition, I believe you and those like you are the real risk to the restoration of 2A carry.

If you continue losing cases like the New York case, you will be forever wasting your member's donations and making it impossible for the courts to recognize CC in as a 2A right.

All you are doing is solidifying the government's position that CC permits exist as the path that makes something purely illegal...legal.

All permits are the same whether you are talking environmental permits, construction permits, hunting licenses, driver's licenses or whatever form of permit you want to argue for.

Without the permit, it's illegal and therefore cannot ever be a right...it's a privilege, which can be taken away as quickly as it was given.
 

wildhawker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
113
Location
California, USA
Heh. I'm actually laughing at this one, Sons.

If you believe that I'm the person to fear in all this, then I suppose two things: 1) you feel I'm (we're) powerful enough to be concerned about, and 2) you really have no idea who we are or what we're about, and how that translates into strategic considerations.

Do you really think we structure cases (such as the SAF NY case) to simply win at district and that's it? You're naive and misunderstand strategic litigation.

What we're doing is securing a highly-utilized manner of carry (and the absolutely overwhelming popular manner of bear by preference) - and currently the only real manner of bear available to Californians - while seeking to create enough caselaw on the right to bear at 2A/14A ratification that we can use for follow-on cases like fees, permits, and manner bans.

I'm sorry you think that I and others argue FOR permits; you're simply wrong and you don't seem to have any intention of believing otherwise.

In re a right taken away simply because it's regulated, again, you're wrong. There's just nothing that can overcome your lack of knowledge and refusal to become informed - but you. Choose as you will. In the meantime, we'll continue doing actual gun rights work, and you can continue complaining on the internet to the few people in the echo chamber who agree with you.

-Brandon

Yes, Brandon, you are wrong.

In addition, I believe you and those like you are the real risk to the restoration of 2A carry.

If you continue losing cases like the New York case, you will be forever wasting your member's donations and making it impossible for the courts to recognize CC in as a 2A right.

All you are doing is solidifying the government's position that CC permits exist as the path that makes something purely illegal...legal.

All permits are the same whether you are talking environmental permits, construction permits, hunting licenses, driver's licenses or whatever form of permit you want to argue for.

Without the permit, it's illegal and therefore cannot ever be a right...it's a privilege, which can be taken away as quickly as it was given.
 
Last edited:

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
750
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
Even if California ends up with concealed carry as the 'chosen' option, it will still be possible to chip away at the left-over concealed carry regulatory scheme (which will undoubtedly remain largely in place even after it becomes 'shall issue').

Huge changes are occuring nationally that do not bode well for California's close-minded approach to regulating the Second Amendment right. Let's not forget that all Americans have the fundamental right to bear arms for self-defense in public (or at least soon will). If unrestricted open-carry is not an option in California, then 14th Amendment challenges will be brought by non-California Plaintiffs who are Constitutionally entitled to the exercise their fundamental right to carry for self-defense in public (even while 'just visiting' California) but are unable to do so for a variety of silly reasons embedded in California law i.e. non-residency, home-state permit not recognized by California, home-state not issuing permit at all (Vermont), no-home state to issue permit (expatriate Americans), non-conforming firearm (pistol not recognized as 'safe' by California) and on and on. Furthermore, if the licensing delays, high fees and 'training' requirements seem reasonable (in Court) for full-time California residents, how reasonable will they seem for a fellow American tourist visiting California for a few days?

Once the Supreme Court holds that there indeed exists a fundamental right to self-defense outside the home (i.e. in public) and that it is part of the Second Amendment it will only be a matter of time (years or decades, but still only a matter of time) before all the silliness starts going away.

Meanwhile, with shall-issue the law in California, tens or hundreds of thousands of Californians, newly acquainted with the right to self-defense, will swell the ranks of the already powerful pro-gun voting block which is jealously working to protect and expand our rights. I believe we have seen this phenomenon in all the other shall-issue states who continue to liberalize the gun laws.

Still, I'd like to see the Open Carry ban fail! I think that California can have Open Carry and get shall issue too! I think that it is a bit short-sighted for certain pro-gun groups to sacrifice Open Carry in the name of gun-rights 'progress'.
 
Last edited:

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
Yes, Brandon, you are wrong.

In addition, I believe you and those like you are the real risk to the restoration of 2A carry.

If you continue losing cases like the New York case, you will be forever wasting your member's donations and making it impossible for the courts to recognize CC in as a 2A right.

All you are doing is solidifying the government's position that CC permits exist as the path that makes something purely illegal...legal.

All permits are the same whether you are talking environmental permits, construction permits, hunting licenses, driver's licenses or whatever form of permit you want to argue for.

Without the permit, it's illegal and therefore cannot ever be a right...it's a privilege, which can be taken away as quickly as it was given.

Sons, sorry to say, but your entire theory just went up in smoke. The Supreme Court isn't interested in cases such as yours, or in an even more heartbreaking sense, a previously 100 percent law abiding citizen, jammed up on a carry charge in a state where a license wasn't commonly available to the regular citizen. A positive ruling would have meant that carry in states like California would be legal and not prosecution if the carry licensing system is may-issue.

See also City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co.(1988) (ordinance vesting in the mayor unbridled discretion to grant or deny annual permit for location of newsracks on public property is facially invalid as prior restraint). The Supreme Court there ruled that news racks, despite being part of the press, could be required to have a permit, but such permitting scheme cannot have unbridled discretion insofar as a prior restraint on a fundamental right. There are numerous ordinances that are in constitutional compliance with Plain Dealer Publishing doctrine, that require permitting or licensing, but do not infringe on the right of the press by vesting discretion in the permitting process. If there are encroachments on this by a mayor or commission breaking Plain Dealer, the newspaper sues and they almost always win. See part of the decision below.

Having concluded that the Newspaper may facially challenge the Lakewood ordinance, we turn to the merits. Section 901.181, Codified Ordinances, City of Lakewood, provides: "The Mayor shall either deny the application [for a permit], stating the reasons for such denial or grant said permit subject to the following terms . . . ." Section 901.181 (c) sets out some of those terms, including: "(7) such other terms and conditions deemed necessary and reasonable by the Mayor." It is apparent that the face of the ordinance itself contains no explicit limits on the mayor's discretion. Indeed, nothing in the law as written requires the mayor to do more than make the statement "it is not in the public interest" when denying a permit application. Similarly, the mayor could grant the application, but require the newsrack to be placed in an inaccessible location without providing any explanation whatever. To allow these illusory "constraints" to constitute the standards necessary to bound a licensor's discretion renders the guarantee against censorship little 770*770 more than a high-sounding ideal. See Shuttlesworth,394 U. S., at 150-151.
The city asks us to presume that the mayor will deny a permit application only for reasons related to the health, safety, or welfare of Lakewood citizens, and that additional terms and conditions will be imposed only for similar reasons. This presumes the mayor will act in good faith and adhere to standards absent from the ordinance's face. But this is the very presumption that the doctrine forbidding unbridled discretion disallows. E. g., Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51 (1965). The doctrine requires that the limits the city claims are implicit in its law be made explicit by textual incorporation, binding judicial or administrative construction, or well-established practice. Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U. S. 395 (1953); Kunz v. New York, 340 U. S. 290 (1951). This Court will not write nonbinding limits into a silent state statute.[SUP][11][/SUP]
771*771 Although the dissent disclaims a desire to pass upon the actual ordinance at issue, it apparently cannot resist making a few comments in this regard. Post, at 793, n. 13. First, it asserts that the ordinance's requirement that the mayor state his reasons for denying a permit distinguishes this case from other licensing cases. However, the mayor's statement need not be made with any degree of specificity, nor are there any limits as to what reasons he may give. Such a minimal requirement cannot provide the standards necessary to insure constitutional decisionmaking, nor will it, of necessity, provide a solid foundation for eventual judicial review.
The dissent is also comforted by the availability of judicial review. However, that review comes only after the mayor and the City Council have denied the permit. Nowhere in the ordinance is either body required to act with reasonable dispatch. Rather, an application could languish indefinitely before the Council, with the Newspaper's only judicial remedy being a petition for mandamus. Cf. Freedman, supra, at 54-55,59. Even if judicial review were relatively speedy, such review cannot substitute for concrete standards to guide the decisionmaker's discretion.E. g., Saia, 334 U. S., at 560, and supra, at 759-760.

You can say what you want about "it's a privilege which can be taken away", but the experience of the Plain Dealer Publishing doctrine does not bear this out, at all. The newspapers comply with the permitting process, and do not resort to the histrionic foaming at the mouth invective you throw at others. Plain Dealer Publishing is the binding doctrine of the Supreme Court in the manner of regulation of a fundamental right in terms of requiring something to be licensed or permitted. For you to ask CGF or SAF or anyone else to ignore this clear doctrine in light of this...it calls into question your expertise on the issue other than just insulting just to insult.
 
Last edited:

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
Huge changes are occuring nationally that do not bode well for California's close-minded approach to regulating the Second Amendment right. Let's not forget that all Americans have the fundamental right to bear arms for self-defense in public (or at least soon will). If unrestricted open-carry is not an option in California, then 14th Amendment challenges will be brought by non-California Plaintiffs who are Constitutionally entitled to the exercise their fundamental right to carry for self-defense in public (even while 'just visiting' California) but are unable to do so for a variety of silly reasons embedded in California law i.e. non-residency, home-state permit not recognized by California, home-state not issuing permit at all (Vermont), no-home state to issue permit (expatriate Americans), non-conforming firearm (pistol not recognized as 'safe' by California) and on and on. Furthermore, if the licensing delays, high fees and 'training' requirements seem reasonable (in Court) for full-time California residents, how reasonable will they seem for a fellow American tourist visiting California for a few days?
.

I'm particularly acutely aware of the situation involving non-resident carry in California. This is why I filed against a shall-issue state outside of California which has the worst law for this (Colorado) in friendlier territory than the 9th Circuit. You ever hear of the "Double Dog Dare"?
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
The Supreme Court there ruled that news racks, despite being part of the press, could be required to have a permit, but such permitting scheme cannot have unbridled discretion insofar as a prior restraint on a fundamental right. There are numerous ordinances that are in constitutional compliance with Plain Dealer Publishing doctrine, that require permitting or licensing, but do not infringe on the right of the press by vesting discretion in the permitting process.

Hasn't the judicial system continually held that commercial speech (i.e. newspapers) is subject to more restriction than non-commercial speech (i.e. an individual handing out flyers)? While there is some similarity to CCW issuance in California and Plain Dealer, I think there are probably better opinions which would be more equivalent to an individual seeking the ability to exercise an enumerated right. Perhaps Lovell v. City of Griffin or Schneider v. State. In both of these cases an individual was required to obtain a permit in order to distribute any type of literature, and in both instances the Supreme Court ruled that a permitting system was unconstitutional.
 
Top