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.
"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.
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.
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.
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:
[video=youtube;STeVTzWelns]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STeVTzWelns[/video]