Finally, someone is doing something to challenge 12031. If it weren't for individuals like Mr. Nichols, we'd still be waiting for someone (or some organization) to do something!
http://ia700803.us.archive.org/21/it...04.docket.html
Complaint is document 1.
Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project
That's good news glad some one with some guts and the money to do this, is taking place.Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty
Now also maybe some will file some law suits, on or after AB-144 takes place too !
$350.00 is a lot to have to file for ones Constitutional Bill of Rights, to fight these bums !
Robin47
Neither bravery nor finances are at the heart of this. I would say that it's more impatience and imprudence driving the timing rather than strategy.That's good news glad some one with some guts and the money to do this, is taking place.
Now also maybe some will file some law suits, on or after AB-144 takes place too !
$350.00 is a lot to have to file for ones Constitutional Bill of Rights, to fight these bums !
Robin47
As for the cost? For $350.00, you too can be a litigant- but this doesnt mean that you will win or even that you have any standing to be heard by the court. $350.00 is only for the first projectile to be lobbed in the first skirmish of the first battle in a war. (My first consultation with an attorney cost me over $500.00 and I didn't take my complaint to law, even though I was entitled.) So, this issue of money is going to be a sore one with this attempt to spit in the California anti-gun establishment's eye, because the litigant does not have the resources necessary to see this through to the end. We know this, because he has been soliciting funds on the internet and through facebook for better than six months. While we were assured that these funds were being collected for the purposes of paying an attorney for their services, the complaint itself reveals that the litigant has filed this pro se. Even if these monies are reserved for appeals, I believe they are short of having enough to move forward with this in any meaningful way by several tens of thousands of dollars.
Giving the litigant the benefit of the doubt, and assuming this is a resounding win, the best case scenario is that we have loaded open carry in California restricted to areas outside of school zones since 626.9 will still be in effect. In most metropolitan areas, it will still be impossible to carry outside a locked case. This fact, will not go unnoticed by our legislators, and I believe there will be renewed interest in expanding school zones to protect the children from the sight of an exposed firearm.
26350 will also stand. Why would a prohibition on UOC be important when we have loaded open carry? If you are transporting through school zones to get to a location where you may loaded open carry you have a problem when you arrive. The instant you unlock your firearm case in public, you violated the law immediately before the firearm has been loaded with ammunition.
With this case, the cart is before the horse. What we really needed before attacking loaded carry, was a case affirming the right to bear a firearm outside of the home. With that, we would be in a better position to tear down the imaginary and arbitrary safety bubble around schools and defang loaded weapon prohibitions. If this complaint does win, I think California, at least for a brief interval, will look more like Wisconsin before they passed their concealed carry law- this has significant limitations not everyone will love.
New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...
NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW
Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
www.shop42a.com
The legislature doesn't need to expand a school zone to accomplish that goal. They just appropriate money to fund new schools, charter or otherwise. Look no farther than governor Browns new attempt to raise taxes. His reason for support is to fund schools. The teachers union, the largest union in the state, and nearly all of the democrat base in California are hell bent on expanding schools. As it is now, most metropolitan areas are just one school zone after another, with avoidance becoming a task. Maybe enlarging each zone would get us there a little faster, but encroachment is the real demon that assures the victory unless law itself is voided. Just reference the plight of any wild animal species in California
I might also add that expanding the actual zone of a school beyond 1000 feet might make it ripe for a challenge to show cause
The crooks/gangsters could care less about school zones. Just yesterday there was a shooting just outside a school in Santa Monica. Do you think the guy that shot the other person, trying to kill him really cares that if he gets caught he is going to face an enhanced sentence for popping someone in a school zone. The BG could probably care less, and probably does not even know that law exist. Remember they pass these laws "for the children" , maybe we should ask the student victim of this shooting how the GFSZ law is working for him!! The law and penalty enhancements should have been written to punish those who commit acts of violence with weapons in a school zone, not busting some poor schmuck driving a few blocks away from a school that he has no idea the school even is there.
Santa Monica High School Student Wounded in After-school Shooting
December 7, 2011 -- Police are looking for two suspects in the shooting of a Santa Monica High School student that took place after school Tuesday near the campus, police said.........
Last edited by oc4ever; 12-08-2011 at 12:32 AM.
Mr. Nichols got some air time:
http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/19/re...hallenges-cali
And his commentary as usual, shows a failure to understand the timing and circumstances were not ripe to pursue a facial challenge of the Mulford Act as State or Federal jurisprudence fleshing out 'bear' hasnt adequately secured the right.
His misarticulation of what 12031/25850 prohibits would be funny if we were talking about a cop or a gun store clerk. It takes a different patina from someone representing themselves in a Federal lawsuit. It is worthy of lamenting, not mockery.
New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...
NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW
Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
www.shop42a.com
From an outsider looking in, when, then, would it be ripe? It wasn't ripe when they outlawed the open carry of loaded handguns, and now that they've outlawed the open carry of any handguns it still isn't ripe?
Like many others, I don't necessarily agree with how Charles is going about this. And I didn't necessarily agree with his attorney of choice either when he was trying to raise money for his lawsuit. But, the way I see it is there are two ways this can go, A. he can win, B. he can lose. So what if...
A. He wins: great! We get the Mulford Act nullified and CA goes back to the good ole days of LOC. And for all those who believe this hurts the CCW cause, nonsense, it'll prove itself invaluable for getting Sheriffs to finally open up and issue concealed permits just to get all those scary guns out of sight. Like it or not, this is the path of least resistance because it forces the Sheriffs' hands to buy into the permitting process.
B. He loses: not so great, but not entirely bad either. A loss will strengthen the CCW cases where the big 2A folks are pushing for permits via the court system. And if he ever gets his case to the 9th and loses there also, as the right people like to say circuit court splits provide a sure path to SCOTUS, and in the end it'll be just be one more decision the 9th can be overturned on. And in the meantime nothing changed, we won't be able to bear any more than we can right now.
"Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin
At present, there is no right to 'bear' recognized in California. No state level 2A provision in our Constitution and there is no cited jurisprudence that acknowledges our right to carry. (In fact, bad case law has been created saying specifically there is no right to carry firearms in California.) Challenging 12031/25850 is only ripe when we have re-established the ability to carry for self-defense outside of the home.
The good old days of loaded open carry did not include heeding 1000 foot gun free school zones. While it was my hope that Nordyke would help sort out why not all government property isnt a 'sensitive area', it seems that has perished in the immediate outcome in the 9th circuit. We will also be in the awkward position of having unloaded guns banned in exactly the same places where loaded guns no longer aren't. Weirder yet, is that police wont be able to verify loaded status without reasonable suspicion. This could prove problematic if a firearm is discharged until empty in a self-defense situation. (Pretty easy to imagine with a revolver loaded with five.)
On another note, 12031/25850 already is being challenged as a 4th amendment issue on another case...I think it would have been nice for that to have played out, before imposing litigation that might influence other pieces on the board.
A loss has effects too. A loss in Federal court will be exploited by the Brady Campaign and LCAV as their 'wins' and subsequently be used to encourage hand-wringers to fill their war-chest to stem the tide of millions of 'illegal guns' being promoted by the NRA and the monolithic multi-billion dollar gun industry.
New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...
NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW
Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
www.shop42a.com
When the powers that be (aka CalGuns) decree it is so from their lofty perches.
They (CalGuns) shall also decree the right person (obviously it is not Charles), the right lawyer (again, obviously not the lawyer Charles has hired), and the right location (obviously not where Charles has filed). As long as you follow their directives to the letter and await their command, you may have a chance. Just don't do anything on your own or without their approval.
Last edited by WCrawford; 03-21-2012 at 10:22 PM.
I dont speak for Calguns, but I will point out the following;
Anyone can file a lawsuit for anything they please, but in order to advance their complaint, they will need to have standing- some proof of injury and deep pocket$. They will also need representation with experience with California gun law that understands the judicial landscape... Knowing which districts are certain rule in favor of Californias restrictive and prohibitive gun policy and knowing what litigation is already in the pipeline and how not to upset those outcomes before they bear fruit. None of that has been demonstrated by Nichols actions, and it doesn't take the leadership of any organization to expose what is plain as day for most anyone to see.
ETA; This is a pretty good article illustrating the strategy of being selective about going to law. http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/heller-ru...s-for-victory/
Be sure to thank me for the quote...
One of the problems is that criminal defense attorneys and over-zealous Second Amendment advocates keep bringing broad sweeping cases trying to overturn criminal convictions or wipe out a wide-ranging array of gun-control laws in one fell swoop. The result has been numerous bad precedents, as judges, often fearful of opening criminal and/or civil floodgates, have used some pretty far-fetched legal reasoning to maintain the status quo. They are able to do this because certain definitions and principles have not yet been solidly established – that’s what’s at the heart of the SAF-Gura strategy. By keeping their cases narrow and focused on fundamentals, they leave little room for equivocation on the part of judges. Each win establishes a precedent, which must then be followed by other judges, in effect boxing them in and forcing them to deliver the decisions they should. It also has the advantage of accomplishing goals incrementally, with each case only affecting a relatively small number of people and laws. By the time the “big” cases come up, limits and exceptions have already been defined, and the impact of the case has been narrowed by the successive cases leading up to it. This means that there is less concern about sweeping decisions forcing the release of convicted murderers or generating a flood of nuisance appeals from genuine criminal miscreants.
Last edited by ConditionThree; 03-22-2012 at 11:41 PM.
New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...
NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW
Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
www.shop42a.com
Seems to me that Mr. Nichols is following a pretty reasonable strategy. I think that some of the recent losses by certain gun groups pushing the CC agenda is working to strengthen the open carry case as the courts allude to open carry as the 2A protected right as they address the CC cases. It still seems to me that the right course would have been to challenge the CA law and laws in other states by 1) not addressing the CC issues and 2) firmly establish the open carry right in states that prohibit or restrict open carry. Open carry is the current ponderings of the lower courts' interpretation of SCOTUS 2A leanings. If you can't win the "bear" spirit of the 2A issue, which I believe is for all practical purposes unregulated open carry, then what purpose does the 2A serve?
Last edited by Sons of Liberty; 03-27-2012 at 11:20 PM.
Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project
Well, let's be specific. I think that would be fair, since no one is likely to dispute your assertions when they contain no salient details. Like which gun groups you are refering to. And what cases that they have lost. And how these cases are related to an alleged concealed carry only agenda.
As to the reasonableness of Mr. Nichols' strategy. I would only agree if we already had jurisprudence supporting 'bear'. And already overturned the false belief that areas within 1000 feet of a public or private school were a 'sensitive area'. And been properly counselled by representation who were competent and inclined to work within a larger strategy to arm everyone willing (This includes not pursuing challenges that are already in the queue for consideration by the court). And did not assume that dicta from district courts was any indication of how any other court would define the second amendment. Yeah,.. other than that, it's perfectly reasonable.
New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...
NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW
Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
www.shop42a.com
So then how do you explain that the only carry win in a Federal District Court ever is the SAF case in Maryland - Woolard? It was certainly not an open carry case...
-Gene
Statist agreeing we need permission, not that hard to see.
Just like national reciprocity is not a "freedom win" an added built in requirement to it.
I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.
U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)
That's easy for you to say. You live in a state where LOC is long respected and Concealed Permits are trivial to get. Even I have one.
Incrementalism wins in ways that absolutism does not.
-Gene
Yes; we are losing our 2nd Amendment rights in increments. We are also losing support for the 2nd incrementally. While we squabble over where, what, how, and who, the government schools teach the next generation nothing about the 2nd, and in fact, are showing them that near total bans are lawful near schools.
We didn't lose the 2nd amendment overnight, and likewise we wont reinstitute the whole 2nd amendment in one bold effort. (Or as Gene is saying; By being absolute on principle, when such principles are not congruous to our current political and legal reality.)
In California, the 2A was whittled away in tiny, easy to digest portions seasoned with superficially acceptable justifications. Beginning with addressing the problem of Latinos and Chinese carrying concealed handguns- then later, to address the problem of African Americanes armed with loaded shotguns and rifles. The only thing that has changed in the bigotry that is being imposed on us, is that the legislature is able to discriminate on a colorless minority under the pretense of public safety.
I would say however, that strong interest in or support of gun ownership continues to be the driving motivator for anti-gun legislators. They propose laws, because they see something that they feel must be reigned in, something that they cannot regulate fast enough to maintain their ideal status quo. If there were little or no interest in guns and gun ownership, they would feel no need to propose new regulations. This is where we got AB1934 and AB144 - because the interest was strong enough to feel in Sacramento.
The good news is that no matter how strong Sacramento is, there is Kryptonite that makes every new effort to reduce the 2A weaker.
http://blog.crpa.org/?p=1760
http://renbergphotography.com/photo/wot/
How we win in California is by creating new gun owners of an unassailable demographic. If we regularly take up the responsibility of passing on our 2A legacy, we will eventually make the anti-gunners push back with new law... unless it makes them look like the bullies and bigots that they actually are.
New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...
NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW
Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
www.shop42a.com
Reread what was posted you asked about a Maryland case dealing with CC (permitting a right) I proposed an answer to your "why that was a win".
I disagree on the incrementalism.
I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.
U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)
Name-calling isn't allowed here, SVG. I suggest you correct your attitude post-haste.
If we followed your way, our religious liberties would not have been as good if not for the Jehovah's Witness cases, nor racial segregation annihilated ever if it weren't for Charles Hamilton Houston filing the numerous cases that lead to Brown v. Board in 1954. He started those cases in 1930, btw, and his 20 years of continuous work basically killed him dead.
Want to make it where states and counties can no longer deny the right to keep and bear arms because of your residency? Make a tax-deductible donation via Paypal to my case, Peterson v. Martinez, and we can tear down that infringement on our right to travel with our functional firearms..
With all due respect C3, I don't think you have a significant grasp on the changing demographics out there. I know you live in a different environment, but the big cities where the larger voting blocks are have been experiencing gentrification by voters who do not favor guns at all. You've got recent immigrants who never had gun rights, and have a historical fear of an armed populace that have turned into roving bands of renegades and dictatorial militias. You've also got an un-talked about, ever expanding group of people who can't own a firearm, but can vote. I've spoken with many of them who have restrainingorders, domestic violence convictions, etc, and they start turning away from support for individual ownership because they don't equate it with 2a anymore. You've also got this really expanding base of people living with gun and gang violence in their cities that also could give a rat's kazoo about the 2A. I'd suggest you come on tour with me again, although this time a trip around the more populated and growing neighborhood and pass out fliers and greet people. You might be in for a real shocker
I don't believe he's saying we should abandon the court pathway totally. I do think he is suggesting we not put all of the eggs in that basket because the fox may be hiding in there
I called the government judges statist, read the post carefully my brother. On why judges would agree to CC "rights". I like what SAF has done and Cal guns I simply don't agree they and NRA are the only solutions, and am pointing out that the natives are restless and tired of waiting for politicians and lawyers and judges to "determine" what our rights are. We know our rights we know what is right the constitution isn't that hard of a document to understand.
Gray I was raised with a witness mother and spent some time in that religion I am very familiar with those cases, the witnessed didn't pick and choose and they didn't compromise they didn't play games they fought for what was their right straight up.
This doesn't mean I am dumb to what the system has become, but fed up with the system. Don't forget Brown vs. Board then lead to unconstitutional busing schemes mandated by the court.
You nailed it.
I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.
U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)
"Congress shall make no law" seems clear, but it isn't.
As for "They are the only solutions", if you value the longevity of your rights, they are in fact the only solutions.
This whole thing stinks to high heaven involving this case and associated orbit. Mr. Nichols is an apparent liar & a perjurer as he clearly perjured himself on a state form in registering South Bay Open Carry with the California Secretary of State's Office, pretending to be a high up person authorized and having authority to register. Mr. Nichol's apparent choice of appellant counsel (unless this has changed, he'll likely come out with another hit piece on his web site attacking me if I'm wrong), Jon Birdt is also an admitted perjurer and has a lack of moral turpitude, See Count 2. Mr. Birdt, after being confronted with this data on CalGuns resorted to homophobic slurs, suggesting that I commit a sex act on another man (as a negative), using a duplicate account after his primary "jonbirdt" account was banned by the CalGuns.net forum admin (Paul "Kestryll" Nordberg) for vile and profane personal attacks on other people there, including me.
The third lawyer who kept attacking SAF and CalGuns, Mr. Gary Gorski (he filed the Mehl and Rothery litigations in Sacramento County, which are probably moot as his clients likely have licenses now), also has public endangerment problems, including endangering a woman who was riding on his pike (presumably his wife). He suggested a sex act too when he was pissed off.
It is no surprise that the legal minds who believe that Alan Gura is doing all of this wrong (despite winning both of his only two Supreme Court trips, and following the same successful strategic civil rights litigation path as Charles Hamilton Houston) have serious issues with moral turpitude, misrepresenting themselves, telling the truth, and endangering others. Their recent history (not merely just stuff from 25 years ago which has since been pardoned or something similar) shows a serious lack of ethics, a mentality of "my way or the highway", that any ends justify the means, that they have a right to engage in boorish behavior, believe themselves to be better than everyone else with nothing to show for it.
Federal and state judges research into the history of the lawyers in front of them. Once they are tainted with moral turpitude charges, admissions, or allegations, it is a very high bar to prove otherwise to a judge that you're not going to misrepresent yourself to a court, or perjure yourself, or misrepresent your evidence or your legal statements. This also applies to pro-se litigants.
Yes, and they didn't attempt to take on every type of law involving the issue at once. They did play one game: Building one case after another. If you want me to find all of the actual case law so you can study them chronologically, I believe I can find them for you if you wish. Also, the 20 years of cases done by Charles Hamilton Houston in re segregation led to the correct decision in Brown v. Board of Education.Gray I was raised with a witness mother and spent some time in that religion I am very familiar with those cases, the witnessed didn't pick and choose and they didn't compromise they didn't play games they fought for what was their right straight up.
You also cannot blame Mr. Houston for the busing situation, either, as he died in 1950. We could only hope to have a "forced busing" situation with guns, which would be all children nationally would be required to have gun safety classes at no cost to the students, including range training and legal instruction mandated by Congress, nationwide, as part of it's militia power (this would be a good thing, see the Militia Act of 1792, such a law is definitely constitutional).
Mr. Nichol's challenge should have been filed after we narrowed all discretion out of the process of carry licensing, not beforehand, perhaps going after a sheriff who arrests someone for a full open accidental exposure of a carry weapon. While it's been suggested that the state could regulate the manner of carry, the briefings do not suggest it's appropriate to arrest or imprison someone for not following that direction.
Unfortunately, our movement is dealing with intransigent district courts who refuses to take the literal commands of Heller and McDonald seriously. We, as the plaintiffs and attorneys who are doing this in the historically correct manner, cannot do things like suggest or actually try citizens arresting the judges on the spot for making the wrong ruling.
There must be as many good cases taken up to the Supreme Court, as quick as we can, to lay the groundwork so that a more competent and less scandal plagued people than Charles Nichols, Gary Gorski, and Jon Birdt can win an "open carry" challenge to the law. All Mr. Nichols will accomplish is making it nearly impossible to win that later, especially if they take it to the 9th Circuit on the merits and they lose. We'd potentially lose federal constitutional protection for open carry in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and other states. Mr. Nichols litigation, as well as Mr. Nichols' personal actions against others in California, endangers you and me in Washington State.
What happens when a state court judge, in dealing with yet another RCW 9.41.270 arrest, directly cites Mr. Nichols losing litigation (assuming it isn't totally dismissed on a 12b1 motion so as to not generate any negative case law, crossing my fingers on that) and "reads up" the statute basically hitting us with "strict liability" for open carry, where a 911 call equals grounds for a conviction against you for .270, and rather than on the currently shaky grounds that they do so now, they now have the force of 9th Circuit precedent? OC dies in Washington until 270 is changed. Good luck getting that done. If there should be an OC case filed, it should be in Washington, preferably Eastern Washington District in Spokane, not the LA dominated central district of California.
Remember: It is carry that is the right. There is no history of criminal prohibitions (note, I said criminal) requiring open carry and banning concealed in 1791 under state analogues to the 2nd amendment that existed at that time. All of that was created starting over 20 years post ratification of the Second Amendment. Categorical analysis would bear this out, and in modern times, it is concealed carry that is preferred method of carry of over 10 million carry license holders and residents of "Vermont/Alaska style" carry states.
This is why Mr. Nichols litigation is so outrageous and without actual facts. He can't properly explain away Heller's statement about "bearing arms being on the person...in the coat or pocket". He wants the Legislatures to be able to ban concealed carry without challenge, under the misapprehension that "open carry is the right", which would condemn persons who are sensitive to social stigma issues from being able to protect themselves.
Forced OC and not be able to access concealed carry would turn carry into a 2 day a week right. Concealed is considered the default method of carry in modern times. OC is stigmatized thanks to the uses of it for pure political reasons Also, even during the height of the concealed carry banning by the states, the those laws was exclusively targeted towards men. Women often carried concealed underneath their dresses and were never bothered by a lawman or marshal.
The success of the group underpinning the organizations and allies involved as unquestioned: One SCOTUS decision that resulted in the annihilation of 70 years of bad 2nd amendment precedent existed in nine different US Courts of Appeal, a Second SCOTUS decision which annihilated bad 2A application to the state precedent in all circuits, the state of Maryland in the process of being freed (5.8 million people), Sacramento settling the Sykes case (yes, we're aware of the appointments issue, we're working on fixing it quickly), and we got three counties to issue for "self defense" for personal protection besides Sacramento (El Dorado, Lake, Monterey with certain exceptions), forced San Francisco's Sheriff's Office to actually create a process for carry licensing, annihilating the North Carolina Emergency Powers gun ban.
Suing Merced and Los Angeles Counties (Sheriff Association President and most populated county sheriff in the nation) for carry licensing procedure illegalities, suing NYC for having licensing fees for possession in the home that is higher than $10 (first step in annihilating the licensing requirement), and also suing every may-issue state and no-issue state except for Hawaii (being handled by HDF, good organization) and Rhode Island (which will be dealt with in the Massachusetts appeal). They're also suing to take down the SB23 features ban as well in California, which will have an effect nationwide. This doesn't include the numerous times CGF has stepped in to defend factually innocent gun owners who were on the verge of being railroaded into a confession and a plea deal....
So to close: The folks who vigorously oppose CalGuns and SAF, and silly enough to file lawsuits on their own behalf using absurd legal theories and beliefs they can win using said bad theories, tend to be people of low morals & ethics, have demonstrated histories of perjury, lack moral character, and lack moral turpitude. This isn't to say that all that have issues with SAF, CGF, or Alan Gura have that issue. People can differ as to whether it's appropriate to do something. However, the folks who are doing "The Lord's Work" on the strategic civil rights litigation have a demonstrated track record as stated above. Nichols, Birdt, and Gorski do not have a track record of success in 2nd amendment litigation, or even previous experience that would be helpful in this regard.
UPDATE: After reading the latest atrocity from PACER, I have only this to say, as this video reminds me the most of Mr. Nichols:
Last edited by Gray Peterson; 04-06-2012 at 02:33 AM.
Want to make it where states and counties can no longer deny the right to keep and bear arms because of your residency? Make a tax-deductible donation via Paypal to my case, Peterson v. Martinez, and we can tear down that infringement on our right to travel with our functional firearms..
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote