• 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.

Concern over SAF and CGF Lawsuit

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
638
Location
Riverside, California, USA
What more evidence do we need!

OC has been sacrificed as a pawn in CGF's CC strategy! Gene's fratricide comment comes to fruition.

This article brings this out.

"Legislatures might well prefer one form of carrying over another. Precedent relied upon by Heller reveals an ancient suspicion of weapons concealment where social norms viewed the wearing of arms as virtuous. But today, the open carrying of a handgun may be mistakenly viewed as provocative or alarming by individuals unfamiliar with firearms. California’s mode of regulating the carrying of handguns thus makes perfect sense. In rural, sparsely populated areas, Sheriffs are allowed to issue permits to carry handguns openly. But in more populous areas, the state deprives Sheriffs of this ability, and specifies that permits to carry must be limited to concealed handguns." - SAF/CalGuns appeal brief pg., 31 (emphasis added)

Are you freakin' serious?????

ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: We do not bash other gun rights organizations. However, I am leaving this thread because there is a valid discussion of the strategy involved in such lawsuits.
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
Are you freakin' serious?????

One might level that inquiry at you for your accusation.
You see, the text you quoted was not from Gene, but from Alan Gura- the attorney handling the case. Your reliance on Charles Nichols to properly interpret what is being said is somewhat misplaced as he has demonstrated here and in the past that he does not fully grasp the strategy or why it is more likely to ensure the results we all want.

Here is the link to the full brief that was quoted; http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/Richards-v-Prieto-Opening-Brief-20110824.pdf
 
Last edited:

Firemark

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
445
Location
San Diego
I read the brief and this exerpt from page 26 really caught my eye.

"Plaintiffs have never argued for a
right to carry handguns in, specifically, a concealed manner. The right
is to carry arms, generally, subject to the state’s regulatory authority
allowing for outright bans on particular modes of carry."

To me it looks like they are going for both open and concealed carry in the total idea of "licensed carry". Once the restriction of good cause is reduced to "self protection" and any law abidng citizen can get a permit, then its a simple matter of altering the regulatory authority on particular modes of carry. Its simply a baby step towards "license to carry loaded any way you prefer" its just setting it up so it doesnt ruffle feathers and its harder to change if its done a little bit at a time. Once you get the license, then its much easier to get the change of the open carry rule---"..what if my coat flys open in public", "...what if my shirt accidential comes up over the weapon", "...what if someone sees printing of the weapon"

Sons of Liberty I think your not seeing what others are seeing, SAF and CGF are being very crafty and selective in their arguments to get to the final goal. But thanks for posting this otherwise I never would have taken the time to read the brief and understand whats actually going on and why it was not attempted in Peruta v San Diego.
 

Firemark

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
445
Location
San Diego
Its like the anti's who keep using the words "assault clip" if you change the language and keep repeating it you can affect peoples view and belief of whats being said....

Search and destroy has now been replaced with sweep and clear..
 

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
I think I understand the strategy they are using. It's the "low hanging fruit".
They feel that getting everyone able to carry concealed is very possible. Getting it all...LOC and concealed carry, or constitutional carry in one shot is not possible.
The first thing it to get "good cause" to be self defense, and "good moral character" to be anyone who isn't prohibited from owning a weapon. This doesn't change the law, but just changes the definition of those two things. They agree the the mode...that requiring a license to carry concealed is ok. After they achieve that, they will go for LOC. After that, they will go for constitutional carry.
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
 

markm

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
487
Location
, ,
I think I understand the strategy they are using. It's the "low hanging fruit".
They feel that getting everyone able to carry concealed is very possible. Getting it all...LOC and concealed carry, or constitutional carry in one shot is not possible.
The first thing it to get "good cause" to be self defense, and "good moral character" to be anyone who isn't prohibited from owning a weapon. This doesn't change the law, but just changes the definition of those two things. They agree the the mode...that requiring a license to carry concealed is ok. After they achieve that, they will go for LOC. After that, they will go for constitutional carry.
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Hey Gundude,

I think you are correct.

As a project manager, I find that it is best to start a project by attacking the little tasks--those little nit-picky things that usually fall in line--except when something goes wrong. Many big projects get derailed over the smallest of things. Think about a foundation for a building. By going after "low hanging fruit," a seriously strong foundation can be built.

In addition, sometimes bigger problems get solved, almost effortlessly. You know, that supplier who gave you a great price to supply material for your project, knows a sub who specializes in a task that you are having trouble with, and wall-la -- your problem is solved!

The political left has dismantled 2A one bite at a time, and now we have this huge elephant of anti-constitutional laws and judicial precedent that need to be eaten, one bite at a time.

This is reality.

15 years ago, did any of you think that 4 states would be Constitutional Carry? How many of us thought that LEO would think twice, or pay the consequences, for violating a gun owners 4A rights? How many of us anguished that a 2A case never made it to SCOTUS? Wisconsin is going shall-issue and Chicago and DC are fighting a losing battle--who knew!. Cops are being sued in California for violating rights. 2A cases are in the courts. There are very few states that I travel through where I am in fear of getting caught with my guns; this was not the case 10 years ago.

Progress is being made; one bite at a time. Our political system was designed to move slowly--this is good as command-and-control liberals can't change things too quickly.

I agree with you Gundude.

markm
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
I think it's pretty common for arguments to be made in lawsuits that don't necessarily reflect the true positions of those making the arguments, but instead further the case that is currently underway. There's no rule saying you can't talk about how the legislature obviously wants to have concealed carry be the method of carry one day and then the following day say open carry is constitutionally mandated. Given CGF's stated goal of getting concealed carry licenses to be shall issue first, I would expect arguments to be written exactly in this way. Laying out how you really feel about everything would make achieving incremental goals incredibly difficult as your arguments would get incredibly complicated.
 

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
638
Location
Riverside, California, USA
Your reliance on Charles Nichols to properly interpret what is being said is somewhat misplaced as he has demonstrated here and in the past that he does not fully grasp the strategy or why it is more likely to ensure the results we all want.

Here is the link to the full brief that was quoted; http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/Richards-v-Prieto-Opening-Brief-20110824.pdf

I downloaded the case last night and read that first section including the parts quoted in the article.

How can you not see what Gura is saying, "California’s mode of regulating the carrying of handguns thus makes perfect sense." This is what Gura is saying. It makes perfect sense to him! He is agreeing with the California legislature's approach to restricting open carry! Outrageous!

This continues CGF's, SAF's, and the NRA's long time aversion to defending open carry! Some have said that we're being thrown under the bus. It's true. We are being used as pawns...expendable...to futher the objectives of monarchs.

Here's another quote, "Heller’s recognition of a right to carry a handgun does not force states such as California and Texas to allow the carrying of handguns in a manner they understandably perceive may cause needless public alarm, so long as a more socially-conducive option exists to allow people to exercise the right to bear arms."

Gura is not quoting. Gura is providing an affirmation of the regulations (12031) against open carry put out by the legislature to further the CC case.

How can any sane, Constitution-loving citizen not take offense at these arguments?!

Gene was not kidding about his fraticide comment. He said it and here it is. What more is there to prove?
 

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
638
Location
Riverside, California, USA
I think I understand the strategy they are using. It's the "low hanging fruit".
They feel that getting everyone able to carry concealed is very possible. [SNIP] Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

CC shall issue is not the "low hanging fruit". You have to get a couple of ladders out to get to that fruit. You have decisions at the district court levels (Peruta v. County of San Diego) and decisions at the Supreme Court level (McDonald v. City of Chicago), which have not been supportive of striking down CC permits through a 2A argument.

The obvious leanings of the courts have been towards open carry. The low hanging fruit is the 12031 loaded carry prohibition.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
No, Gura speaks to the reality. He isn't formulating and presenting HIS opinion, he is explaining the reality that is witnessed.

Here is the progression:
Observation:
But today, the open carrying of a handgun may be mistakenly viewed as provocative or alarming by individuals
unfamiliar with firearms.
Relevant citation:
(“No reasonable person would dispute that walking into
a retail store openly carrying a firearm is highly disruptive conduct
which is virtually certain to create a disturbance”)
Conclusion:
California’s mode of regulating the carrying of handguns thus makes
perfect sense.

I highly doubt that such is HIS opinion or desire, it is a statement of the reality.


He shows that the reality is "mistakenly viewed as provocative or alarming", cites a statement from a court case, and points out that the method used by california "thus makes perfect sense."

That shows that HE understands the opposition. That is a good thing.
 

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
638
Location
Riverside, California, USA
[SNIP]He shows that the reality is "mistakenly viewed as provocative or alarming", cites a statement from a court case, and points out that the method used by california "thus makes perfect sense."

That shows that HE understands the opposition. That is a good thing.

Gura could have said but did not say, "California’s mode of regulating the carrying of handguns thus is defective." He could have said but did not say, "...thus is misplaced." He could have said but did not say, "...thus is misguided."

He said, "makes perfect sense."

Definition of perfect is "without fault", "without blemish", "lacking nothing". Meaning of makes sense is "to be reasonable or comprehensible".

Gura is therefore saying, "California's mode of regulating the carrying of handguns is thus reasonable without fault."

He is sacrificing open carry and arguing that regulations for keeping guns concealed are reasonable.
 

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
I downloaded the case last night and read that first section including the parts quoted in the article.

How can you not see what Gura is saying, "California’s mode of regulating the carrying of handguns thus makes perfect sense." This is what Gura is saying. It makes perfect sense to him! He is agreeing with the California legislature's approach to restricting open carry! QUOTE]

I think you are confusing regulation and restriction. He agrees that regulation is needed. He is not agreeing to restrictions (you're words)Any restriction that is disguised as regulation can be attacked, and I'm sure that will happen. We have many here in Calif.
The purpose of this lawsuit is very narrow. To get good cause defined as self protection and to get good moral character defined as any person who can legally own a firearm.
Regulation would be things like brandishing, threatening someone, or firing into the air.
Restriction is what we have now. I am a lawabiding citizen who isn't prohibited from owning a firearm, yet I can't legally carry a functional handgun for self protection.

Just my opinion.
 

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
638
Location
Riverside, California, USA
Still not buying your arguments. Here's another "pearl" from Gura:

"Heller’s recognition of a right to carry a handgun does not force states such as California and Texas to allow the carrying of handguns in a manner they understandably perceive may cause needless public alarm, so long as a more socially-conducive option exists to allow people to exercise the right to bear arms."

Where is this spelled out in Heller?
 
Last edited:

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
638
Location
Riverside, California, USA
I think you are confusing regulation and restriction. He agrees that regulation is needed. He is not agreeing to restrictions (you're words)Any restriction that is disguised as regulation can be attacked, and I'm sure that will happen. We have many here in Calif.
The purpose of this lawsuit is very narrow. To get good cause defined as self protection and to get good moral character defined as any person who can legally own a firearm.
Regulation would be things like brandishing, threatening someone, or firing into the air.
Restriction is what we have now. I am a lawabiding citizen who isn't prohibited from owning a firearm, yet I can't legally carry a functional handgun for self protection.

Just my opinion.

Gura is supporting the idea in his argument that an open carry restriction in the regulation is reasonable in an urban area. This is what he is putting forth: A restriction in the bearing of arms (open carry).

Another quote from Gura, "California validly chose to render the open carrying of handguns for self-defense largely impossible, while licensing the concealed carrying of functional handguns for self-defense."

The more reasonable argument would be that the restricting of openly carried handguns to a state of unloaded is unconstitutional.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
I dunno, I still think he's arguing to his strengths. If he argues that open carry and concealed carry laws in California are both messed up, then the CGF strategy falls apart. Say this case didn't exist and they file a new one with a complaint pointing out how open carry and concealed carry should be legal and easy to do in California. Now you're fighting a battle on two fronts and you have to win them BOTH. If you win concealed and lose open, then you just created case law that says open carry isn't needed. If you win open and lose concealed, you just created case law saying you don't need concealed. That goes against CGF's known strategy of getting the hard stuff out of the way first.

Is 12031 the low hanging fruit? Absolutely. But where do you go from there? If the courts follow the Peruta judge line of thinking, as soon as one form of carry is granted then there is no constitutional requirement to allow another method. Go over to calguns.net and count the concealed carry supporters throwing money into CGF and then count the open carriers doing the same. If CGF gets open carry but loses concealed then they've abandoned their base who will now be very upset. Sure, we'll be happy, but CGF will not grow as an organization. Going after concealed first makes perfect sense in a long-term strategic viewpoint in my opinion.

Gun rights organizations will continue to have to take on the harder cases first until the supreme court says that citizens have the right to carry a firearm in any way they desire (which it should, but probably won't). We still haven't got the supreme court to explicitly say bearing arms is protected, but once they do they will likely have lots to say on the manner of carry, and based on that dicta new cases will be filed which exploit the hints that the justices give us.

Perhaps there's a way to get concealed and open carry in California by going after 12031 first, but I can't figure out how to do it. I'd love to hear any strategies anybody has though.
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
399
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
Gura is supporting the idea in his argument that an open carry restriction in the regulation is reasonable in an urban area. This is what he is putting forth: A restriction in the bearing of arms (open carry).

Another quote from Gura, "California validly chose to render the open carrying of handguns for self-defense largely impossible, while licensing the concealed carrying of functional handguns for self-defense."

The more reasonable argument would be that the restricting of openly carried handguns to a state of unloaded is unconstitutional.

Because the 2A caselaw(through mostly state cases) is heavily in favor of the state allowing one and restricting the other. It may be tough to refer to Nunn and Chandler and say that the 2A protects public carry, but we also think they're wrong in that we should have both CC and OC. While most cases protected OC while prohibiting CC, the fact is the opposite will be the case today unlike the 1800's and early 1900's. Going for the homerun shot right off the bat is what got us in trouble in the past.
In CA, even assuming you could get UOC changed to LOC, you still have the BS gun-free school zones, and numerous other problems that are bypassed by having a CCW.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Gura could have said but did not say, "California’s mode of regulating the carrying of handguns thus is defective." He could have said but did not say, "...thus is misplaced." He could have said but did not say, "...thus is misguided."

He said, "makes perfect sense."

Definition of perfect is "without fault", "without blemish", "lacking nothing". Meaning of makes sense is "to be reasonable or comprehensible".

Gura is therefore saying, "California's mode of regulating the carrying of handguns is thus reasonable without fault."

He is sacrificing open carry and arguing that regulations for keeping guns concealed are reasonable.

He is creating a legal pleading, not a statement of policy.
You are attempting to parse one or two sentence of a legal pleading out of context, and attempting to claim that this is HIS opinion. It isn't likely.

He is commenting upon how it is actually happening. He isn't agreeing with it. And, he didn't state "reasonable without fault." Had he desired to state that, he would have.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Still not buying your arguments. Here's another "pearl" from Gura:

"Heller’s recognition of a right to carry a handgun does not force states such as California and Texas to allow the carrying of handguns in a manner they understandably perceive may cause needless public alarm, so long as a more socially-conducive option exists to allow people to exercise the right to bear arms."

Where is this spelled out in Heller?

Um, it isn't. Do you have a point? But, you can continue to waste your time attempting to take statements in a legal pleading out of context, and falsely present them as if they were the opinion of the lawyer, but you need to remember that the lawyer isn't writing a paper that presents his opinion. He is writing a paper that he feels will benefit his client in the case being presented. THAT isn't a proper place for policy. It is a place for effectiveness in communication, and for legal wrangling.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Gura is supporting the idea in his argument that an open carry restriction in the regulation is reasonable in an urban area. This is what he is putting forth: A restriction in the bearing of arms (open carry).

Another quote from Gura, "California validly chose to render the open carrying of handguns for self-defense largely impossible, while licensing the concealed carrying of functional handguns for self-defense."

The more reasonable argument would be that the restricting of openly carried handguns to a state of unloaded is unconstitutional.

So, what you needed to do was get on that legal team in Gura's place. Sheesh. It isn't your court case. You do know there is a PERSON attached to the court case. It isn't about you. It is about Peruta. Seriously.

If that case were in Nevada, the points you bring up about wording may be effective. But, given past CA court cases, I highly doubt that the wording you prefer would be effective at acheiving the results the client desires.
 

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
638
Location
Riverside, California, USA
I have no doubt that Gura is writing to put forth the best case for his client: SAF and CGF. I can see this in his writings.

The CGF, and especially Gene, have never been fond of open carry. CC is their agenda. I could (but won't) go and dig out thread after thread of Gene and his supporters trying to dissuade OCers in all of their efforts, because he was afraid of a court case like this one. One that would be written and decided to exclude CC. And now, he has done the thing that he feared others would do to his agenda. A case is being put forth to get the courts to agree that CC is the 2A option.

And if this is decided that CC is the 2A option, how hard do you think it will be to remove the OC restrictions or totally ban OC (without permission slips)?

Infinitely more difficult.

The courts will simply say "You have your 2A option...remember Gura's case? Go and get your government permission slip." (Which, by the way, can be suspended/revoked by the same power that issued it. Look what's happening along the east coast during the hurricane state of emergency, the very time that self-defense is needed.)
 
Top