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

[1245A Defender]

Thanks Gray,,, great info to injest there...


WHAT about Peruta???

[Gray Peterson]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Statkowski]

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]

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]

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.

[MAC702]

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.

[Gray Peterson]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Robin47]

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

[Grapeshot]

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.

We are all encouraged to be self-moderating and to report those that go "one bridge too far." It is not a case of being a hall monitor or tattling - truly despise such characterizations. It is a matter of keeping OCDO focused, responsible and yes, in line with the Forum Rules .

If one needs to know before they post whether a Moderator is in the vicinity/reading their posts, or which hat (mod or not) he is wearing, then I suggest they already know that what they are about to post crosses the line, goes one bridge too far.

I wear two hats very comfortably. When I am forced by circumstances to don my "official hat" it is w/o personal animosity, but I will be effective and direct as required. Why tempt the fates gentleman? You all are intelligent and by and large most responsible - you know the rules. Best bet on any given day, is to strive to be that which the site owners have requested, self-moderating. Do that well and we might not need to change hats as often.

Public apology to Gray for stepping in uninvited. He doesn't need my help, but quite frankly I don't like "lets jump on the Mod for doing his job" initiatives. Strongly recommend that this not be pursued in the manner I see developing here.

PS - Opinions when presented within forum guidelines are not moderated - how they are expressed may reflect on OCDO and that then becomes a different matter: choice of words/vulgarities, personal attack or innuendo etc.

[Jeff Hayes]

We are all encouraged to be self-moderating and to report those that go "one bridge too far." It is not a case of being a hall monitor or tattling - truly despise such characterizations. It is a matter of keeping OCDO focused, responsible and yes, in line with the Forum Rules .

If one needs to know before they post whether a Moderator is in the vicinity/reading their posts, or which hat (mod or not) he is wearing, then I suggest they already know that what they are about to post crosses the line, goes one bridge too far.

I wear two hats very comfortably. When I am forced by circumstances to don my "official hat" it is w/o personal animosity, but I will be effective and direct as required. Why tempt the fates gentleman? You all are intelligent and by and large most responsible - you know the rules. Best bet on any given day, is to strive to be that which the site owners have requested, self-moderating. Do that well and we might not need to change hats as often.

Public apology to Gray for stepping in uninvited. He doesn't need my help, but quite frankly I don't like "lets jump on the Mod for doing his job" initiatives. Strongly recommend that this not be pursued in the manner I see developing here.

PS - Opinions when presented within forum guidelines are not moderated - how they are expressed may reflect on OCDO and that then becomes a different matter: choice of words/vulgarities, personal attack or innuendo etc.

Grapeshot I don't like or appreciate your analogy of "lets jump on the Mod for doing his job" that was not my intention.

My intention was and is to point out a potential problem of someone not understanding when he or she was being moderated/disciplined how ever you want to say it.

Like you said OCDO encourages everyone to be self moderating.

Just to be clear I have never to my knowledge made an inappropriate post on OCDO nor do I plan on it.

I will let this drop here.

[Grapeshot]

Grapeshot I don't like or appreciate your analogy of "lets jump on the Mod for doing his job" that was not my intention.

My intention was and is to point out a potential problem of someone not understanding when he or she was being moderated/disciplined how ever you want to say it.

Like you said OCDO encourages everyone to be self moderating.

Just to be clear I have never to my knowledge made an inappropriate post on OCDO nor do I plan on it.

I will let this drop here.

To be fair, I was not so much replying to any one individual as I was using your quoted context to springboard/launch my thoughts. There have been a few posts/threads that ended up having been better not said/started. My intent was obviously not clear.

Peace - I'm out of here. Enjoy your day.

[slapmonkay]

I took a look today it seems the case was dismissed...

[sudden valley gunner]

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.

Apparently you need to reread what was wrote since you keep constantly misrepresenting what I wrote (you talk to me like that and I will talk back to you like that). And keep harping about the person, and something I never disagreed on? Gray you are wrong I didn't call Gene a Statist. I and others have pointed that out to you . Why do you keep insisting I did? My post wasn't too long why do you keep misunderstanding it or refusing to read it.
So did the witnesses fight for licensed free speech first?

So we cant discuss our disgust with the way things are done either, without being called throwing a tantrum and being in a rage? You do realize that the way you are posting it seems to be you are the one throwing a tantrum and all in a rage? Your opinion isn't always the right opinion, your version of history has a few things I would disagree with.

And anyone who thinks government grants us rights is a statist. If someone takes offense at that too bad. And just in case you missed it the last several times I mentioned it, I didn't call Gene a Statist and if you keep insisting I did you are lying or purposefully doing it for some other silly reason. Can I expect an apology?

[sudden valley gunner]

Interesting?

[Gray Peterson]

Interesting?

I work for a living, and I do a lot of volunteering work and projects helping gun owners, including getting the Heller ruling applied to an entire US territory in the Pacific, so my apologies for not snapping to your demand for attention.

Reading back to what you stated, and also given your previous history, there are one of two potential people you are calling a statist:

1) Gene Hoffman
2) Judge Benson Everett Legg

Reading backwards, here is your comment:

"Statist agreeing we need permission, not that hard to see."

The target of the statement, whether it be Gene or Judge Legg, doesn't change the incorrect notion of the fact that you called one of them a statist, and in either case, it is not factual.

Judge Legg is the first federal district court judge to rule that there is a fundamental right to bear arms outside of the home.

“A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights,” wrote U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg. “The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”

The above statement is not the writings of a statist in any sense of the word.

If you want statist rulings, feel free to read the rulings of Judge William Walls of Pizacktoski v. Filko, Judge Sue Meyerscough of Moore v. Madigan, Judge Stiehl of Shepard v. Madigan, Judge Cathy Siebel of Kachalsky v. Cacace, Judge Denise Casper of Hightowerv. City of Boston, and Judge Morrison England of Richards v. Prieto.

All of these judges got it wrong, and made statist rulings about protecting the public from those "evil gun carriers". Judge Legg was the first federal district judge to rule correctly on the matter of whether the right is outside the home (later followed up by the judge in Bateman v. Perdue), gave the relief asked for to address the standing principles involved (denial of the renewal of the license that was denied to Mr. Woollard) and you call him a freaking statist?

Can I ask you what in the hell are you smoking?

[sudden valley gunner]

I work for a living, and I do a lot of volunteering work and projects helping gun owners, including getting the Heller ruling applied to an entire US territory in the Pacific, so my apologies for not snapping to your demand for attention.

Reading back to what you stated, and also given your previous history, there are one of two potential people you are calling a statist:

1) Gene Hoffman
2) Judge Benson Everett Legg

Reading backwards, here is your comment:

"Statist agreeing we need permission, not that hard to see."

The target of the statement, whether it be Gene or Judge Legg, doesn't change the incorrect notion of the fact that you called one of them a statist, and in either case, it is not factual.

Judge Legg is the first federal district court judge to rule that there is a fundamental right to bear arms outside of the home.

“A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights,” wrote U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg. “The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”

The above statement is not the writings of a statist in any sense of the word.

If you want statist rulings, feel free to read the rulings of Judge William Walls of Pizacktoski v. Filko, Judge Sue Meyerscough of Moore v. Madigan, Judge Stiehl of Shepard v. Madigan, Judge Cathy Siebel of Kachalsky v. Cacace, Judge Denise Casper of Hightowerv. City of Boston, and Judge Morrison England of Richards v. Prieto.

All of these judges got it wrong, and made statist rulings about protecting the public from those "evil gun carriers". Judge Legg was the first federal district judge to rule correctly on the matter of whether the right is outside the home (later followed up by the judge in Bateman v. Perdue), gave the relief asked for to address the standing principles involved (denial of the renewal of the license that was denied to Mr. Woollard) and you call him a freaking statist?

Can I ask you what in the hell are you smoking?

Can I ask what the hell you are smoking ?

Gray....admit you were wrong about what I said that's all you had to do. And if you are so busy doing other stuff that you can't even moderate this forum in an even handed manner, then maybe you should step down as moderator. No offense intended.

Go reread the order of the conversation again, it was about why a judge would rule CC over OC, no judge is specifically named in my comment and my comment was made as a general statement. My comment stands.

Hey wait a second you can call judges statist but others can't? The judges in your example of Brown vs. Board of education should be included in that list. They took powers upon themselves and ruled unconstitutionally in that case, what was it the one justice said "new law for new day".

Apparently you can't even still yet admit I didn't call Gene a statist, and now is throwing another name of a judge into the mix who I am not personally calling statist .

Hmmm how come others displayed the ability to properly read and understand my post.

Save our State wrote-

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'll ask again did the witness fight for licensed 1st amendment rights?

You also said the 2nd amendment isn't clear, it is, it is statist politicians and statist judges and statist lawyers who have clouded the issue.

Congratulations on SAF for winning that case. But as brought out by Hoffman the case wasn't about OC it was about CC. Hopefully we get some proper rulings on that soon, without.....degrading our rights at the same time...like they have done in some many other cases.

I will continue to support other methods of fighting the fight and will not put my eggs all in one basket. I suppose homosexuals should only wait for gay rights groups to win cases before exercising rights or suing for grievances of their civil rights.