• 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

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
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/i...d.518404/gov.uscourts.cacd.518404.docket.html

Complaint is document 1.

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 :)
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
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 :)

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.

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.
 

Save Our State

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

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
 

oc4ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
280
Location
, ,
school zones

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:

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA

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.
 

Statkowski

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,141
Location
Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
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' hasn't adequately secured the right.
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?
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
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.
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
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?

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.

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.

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.
 

WCrawford

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
592
Location
Nashville, Tennessee, United States
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?

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:

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
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.

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-ruling-opens-floodgates-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:

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
638
Location
Riverside, California, USA
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:

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
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?

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.
 

hoffmang

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
120
Location
Peninsula, Bay Area, CA
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.

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
 

sudden valley gunner

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

hoffmang

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
120
Location
Peninsula, Bay Area, CA
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.

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
 

Save Our State

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

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
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 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.
 

sudden valley gunner

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

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

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.
 
Top