https://www.scribd.com/document/340227759/Nichols-Brady-Campaign-Amicus
Brady Campaign filed an amicus brief
This brief seems like it'll help Nichols more than the state. The Bradys are clearly stating that the 2A doesn't extend outside the front door. And, in the same paragraph they argue that CA's scheme is not a total ban because they have CCW licenses, which the 9th just said was not part of the 2A in any shape or form!
More revisionist history. Gotta love how they always mention some obscure ban (Western territories before they became states) that never was tried in a court and was obviously repealed at some point later is the source of the constitutionality of CA's ban. In any case the 2A wasn't incorporated at the time, so the states could do whatever they wanted.
Lots of spinning in this one. A common theme in all the briefs defending CA is the fact they desperately want to avoid a split with Moore, either by ignoring it or claiming it's simply an OC ban (with CCW already off table).
More revisionist history. Gotta love how they always mention some obscure ban (Western territories before they became states) that never was tried in a court and was obviously repealed at some point later is the source of the constitutionality of CA's ban. In any case the 2A wasn't incorporated at the time, so the states could do whatever they wanted.
Lots of spinning in this one. A common theme in all the briefs defending CA is the fact they desperately want to avoid a split with Moore, either by ignoring it or claiming it's simply an OC ban (with CCW already off table).
Wow. California is attempting to in essence claim that the 2A does not apply outside the home but of course trying to use slight of hand to not cause a slit with Moore. They claim open carry bans were the norm (Not True), of course full well knowing Peruta swept CCW off the table.
They also keep mentioning CCW, implying it does satisfy the 2A (which is an about face to their arguments in Peruta).
In essence they want their cake and want to eat it too.
More revisionist history. Gotta love how they always mention some obscure ban (Western territories before they became states) that never was tried in a court and was obviously repealed at some point later is the source of the constitutionality of CA's ban. In any case the 2A wasn't incorporated at the time, so the states could do whatever they wanted.
Lots of spinning in this one. A common theme in all the briefs defending CA is the fact they desperately want to avoid a split with Moore, either by ignoring it or claiming it's simply an OC ban (with CCW already off table).
And in the 9th circus they’ll get away with it.