• 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.

Charles Nichols v. Edmund G Brown Jr et al - 12031 Lawsuit

Gray Peterson

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

Name-calling isn't allowed here, SVG. I suggest you correct your attitude post-haste.

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.

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.
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
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 Negroes 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.

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
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
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.

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
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.

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.


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

You nailed it.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
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]
 
Last edited:

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
Thanks Gray,,, great info to injest there...

WHAT about Peruta???

Richards challenges both good cause and good moral character under the prior restraint doctrine. Peruta the case only challenges good cause and equal protection aspects in re part time residency (as of when the complaint was amended with the additional plaintiffs and the CRPA Foundation). Previous to that, the Peruta case dealt with both good cause and good moral character, and there was quite liberal copying of the Sykes complaint, which later became Richards.

I suggest that without dealing with "good moral character", it is not really "shall-issue" in a way commonly understood in some shall-issue states.

There is no reason to as there's numerous co-plaintiffs. However, I still believe that Richards is the superior case because it encompasses the two major discretionary elements of California carry licensing scheme, versus just one.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Gray no offense but I told you I am aware of the game, the game is one of statist judges acting like they can dole out rights. And folks who think we have to cater to them. I am telling you people are getting tired of that unconstitutional game. And eventually the pot will boil over....those who don't get that will only be in the way....

I know you guys think the game only needs to be played one way, I disagree. The game is played this way out of fear, we shouldn't have that much fear of our judges.

Like I said I am aware of the Witnesses cases already, I'd like to point out they didn't try to argue for a "permitted" 1st amendment and then go for unpermitted 1st amendment rights.....

I don't personally support Nichols or the others, I support their cause, you know there is a difference right? This doesn't even mean I agree they are going about it the right way. I am not so hubris laden to feel I know the only way our rights should be fought for. And please stop talking down to people like "they just don't get it", people do they are just tired of the games.

I don't blame Mr. Houstan I blame the courts and the judges that forced the busing scheme. Brown vs Board of Education also overturned previous bad decision made in Plessy. So I don't buy all the hullabulloo about how regular joes filing cases are going to hurt our rights by creating bad case, 9th circuit has been overturned lots of times, Sotamayor had what 80% of her decisions overturned?. Brown vs. Board also used faulty "doll" logic to win it's case, showing the judges are not very bright themselves I hope SAF and NRA and other gun groups don't lie like that to win their cases.:)

And again, I am glad there are groups like SAF and NRA and Calguns, but because I don't always support their ideology doesn't make me a person of low moral character and the insinuation is rather silly.

Funny that all this comes out of my simple explaining on why statist judges in Maryland have approved of CC over OC.......a point that hasn't been contested. Did Mr. Hoffmang feel compelled to report that post as offensive instead of answering it? Curious minds would like to know.........

P.S. the more big gun rights organizations demonize the common man the more they will loose the common man........just something to think about.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
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.

Gray either post or moderate, please don't do both in the same post that is about as inappropriate as it gets IMHO. Acting as a moderator and then injecting your personal opinion into the thread is bogus. I suggest you correct that post haste.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
Gray either post or moderate, please don't do both in the same post that is about as inappropriate as it gets IMHO. Acting as a moderator and then injecting your personal opinion into the thread is bogus. I suggest you correct that post haste.

My statements Nichols, Birdt, and Gorski are not "personal opinions", they are based on facts.

Nichols publicly perjured himself when he falsely represented to the Secretary of State's Office that he had the authority to register South Bay Open Carry. I posted a link to this from the original founder of SBOC stating so, and there is a letter where he falsely stated so.

Birdt was hit with a moral turpitude and misrepresenting to the court he filed a case in. He was declared liable for it, and I posted a link.

Gorski endangered both the public and his own wife by drunk while impaired, twice.

These are not opinions. They are facts.

Reiterating, and underlining what you and SVG need to read closer since it was apparently TL;DR:

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.

My statement stands. SVG called Gene a "statist", which is laughable because anyone who knows about both Gene Hoffman's and Alan Gura's politics know that they are both libertarian to the core, and given what I know of them, would probably believe that the California Legislature could and in fact probably should repeal the bans on both forms of the carry. The problem is, of course, that while a person or group can try over and over again in the Legislature to repeal things or change things without any sort of precedence value, law and legal theory does not operate that way.

Courts set precedents, including negative precedent, and especially when you ask too much at a time, and it's extremely difficult to overturn that precedent. Asking for unlicensed open carry is akin to Charles Hamilton Houston asking for desegregated in K-12 schools in the mid 1930's. Unlike some gun owners who continue to rage and throw temper tantrums at the current litigation strategy, because they don't want they what they want immediately and the way they want it, the folks who lived in the Civil Rights Movement, who were also doing their best to survive in general, knew what the stakes were, and were wise enough to stay out of the way of Houston and then Marshall during their 35 years of litigation, which culminated in the VRA and CRA passed by Congress. The Nation of Islam (Elijah and Malcolm X) were not stupid enough to involve themselves in litigation for a reason.
 

Charles E. Nichols

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
65
Peterson is wrong as usual

My statements Nichols, Birdt, and Gorski are not "personal opinions", they are based on facts.
Nichols publicly perjured himself when he falsely represented to the Secretary of State's Office that he had the authority to register South Bay Open Carry. I posted a link to this from the original founder of SBOC stating so, and there is a letter where he falsely stated so.

There were some folks affiliated with CalGuns who were running a web-site which illegally claimed to be a California Non-Profit (a misdemeanor). They accepted money on behalf of their "non-profit" which constitutes both state and Federal felonies.

I, on the other hand, legally formed a California non-profit - South Bay Open Carry which I dissolved last December. The Los Angeles District Attorney's office handed off to the California Department of Corporations the decision as to whether or not prosecute those CalGuns folks who were running a bogus non-profit called South Bay Open Carry. A name which they eventually changed to RCC until the "Chairman" of both resigned, leaving the RCC/SBOC or whatever they are calling themselves today in the hands of a person who has been arrested for carrying a concealed handgun without a permit.

But such is the nature of CalGun's folks like yourself Peterson. Here, you are the moderator of a website called "OpenCarry.org" when the world knows you are just a shill for CalGuns, the most vocal opponent of Open Carry in the state of California.
 

Statkowski

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,141
Location
Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
Despite the name calling, the good moral character of who filed what, what should or should not have been filed, it's all immaterial. An open carry lawsuit has been filed. Open carry is either legal or not illegal in a majority of the fifty sovereign states. In many of those states, no license/permit is required when one open carries. So the question becomes, how are the people of California so vastly different from the rest of the country that they can't be trusted to bear arms?
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
Despite the name calling, the good moral character of who filed what, what should or should not have been filed, it's all immaterial. An open carry lawsuit has been filed. Open carry is either legal or not illegal in a majority of the fifty sovereign states. In many of those states, no license/permit is required when one open carries. So the question becomes, how are the people of California so vastly different from the rest of the country that they can't be trusted to bear arms?

It's not about trust; it's about dependence. Firearms wreak of independence, and every iota of independence is targeted for extinction
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
OK Gray I will word my question differently.

In post #21 are you a moderator or a member posting or were you doing both. If you were moderating SVGs post then I think it is inappropriate to also make a comment in the same post irregardless of what you had to say. Just to be clear I was not arguing, debating or questioning what you said in the second part of post #21.

If your were acting as a moderator during post #21 then how can anyone feel free have a difference of opinion with you with out risking being moderated.

What I am saying IMO is you can't be the on duty Cop and go the the party at the same time.
 
Last edited:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
So should we require moderators to have a separate username to differentiate their posts?

I don't think there's a real problem here. I'm not going to agree that is was a needed moderation, but the line breaks were sufficient to tell where his moderating stopped and his own viewpoint on the thread began.
 
Last edited:

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
So should we require moderators to have a separate username to differentiate their posts?

I don't think there's a real problem here. I'm not going to agree that is was a needed moderation, but the line breaks were sufficient to tell where his moderating stopped and his own viewpoint on the thread began.

I'll leave this here as an explanation as it succinctly explains how I feel about this situation. Orphan, if you feel it's improper (which I do not believe it so), feel free to PM Administrator and you'll reach the owner of this site.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
Magistrate Recommendation...

Magistrate recommendation

A terrible complaint, with no understanding of the case law, to sum up Judge Segal's recommendation. The entire lawsuit should be dismissed on 12(b)(1), to redo it all over again.

The old adage of "acting as your own lawyer is a fool for a client" applies here.

The Magistrate's Report was ordered by Judge Otero to independently determine the defects of the complaint. The entire complaint is defective.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
I'll leave this here as an explanation as it succinctly explains how I feel about this situation. Orphan, if you feel it's improper (which I do not believe it so), feel free to PM Administrator and you'll reach the owner of this site.

OK Gray third time is the charm, at least I hope so. Really simple this time were you acting as a moderator during post #21? Its a simple question that only needs a yes or no answer.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
So should we require moderators to have a separate username to differentiate their posts?

I don't think there's a real problem here. I'm not going to agree that is was a needed moderation, but the line breaks were sufficient to tell where his moderating stopped and his own viewpoint on the thread began.

I honestly dont know if Gray was moderating or not that is my point how is SVG to know if its just a comment or something he needs to address.
 
Last edited:

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
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.

The word "Bear" has been in the legal meaning a long time.
Also court cases on it.
Check out Blacks law Dictionary online.
Bear means : To support,sustain & Carry !
As far as arms goes: "Bear Arms" is in Aymette V. state,2 humph ( Tenn) 158
And as applied to firearms : Hill V. state, 53 Ga. 480.
That means loaded firearms !

Just because we live in an un-free state, don't mean the legal words don't count.

I guess we could always look for lope holes ?
However we could also start carrying ZULU SPEARS ! You know the ones with the 18" blades :)
Then they would have to rush to pass laws to outlaw those too,
then move to slingshots, then pea-shooter, but by that time though , we might as well carry a
handbag with some good throwing rocks !
Anyway I want my ZULU Spear ! Robin47 :)
 
Top