Nichols v. Brown - New CA Open-Carry Civil Rights Lawsuit Filed

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • MDFF2008

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 12, 2008
    24,735
    Not enough to change the balance of power on 9CA.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    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.
     
    Last edited:

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Furthermore, California’s laws contain numerous well-considered
    exceptions, including an exigent-circumstances exception for instances in
    which there is a bona fide need to have a firearm for defense of self, other
    persons, or property, and an exception for people who have obtained
    restraining orders against other people, etc. See Cal. Penal Code
    §§ 26045(a) (permitting carrying a loaded firearm to protect persons or
    property from immediate, grave danger), 26362 (exigent circumstances
    exception for open carry of unloaded handgun), 26405(b) (exigent
    circumstances exception for open carry of unloaded long gun). Each of
    these exceptions lessens any burden imposed by the laws. In this respect,

    California’s open-carry laws contrast with the “blanket,” statewide Illinois
    public-carry prohibition that the Seventh Circuit invalidated in Moore v.
    Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 939, 940 (2012)


    So you can carry only under "exigent" circumstances. Any other rights that can be exercised under only "exigent" circumstances?
    It's really pathetic that the state thinks these exceptions make it any different than the Illinois law (taking into account CCW is off the table). Only more pathetic is that many of the leftists on CA9 might actually buy it.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    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!

    If I were him I'd ignore the Brady brief. The Everytown brief is the one that needs to be addressed. The Brady brief is just a bunch of policy arguments.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV

    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).
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    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).

    It is pretty disingenuous of the them and shows their fanaticism that the Left would dry and use firearm statues from 1860s towns with less than a thousand people to create public policy for the entire country.
     

    Peaceful John

    Active Member
    May 31, 2011
    239
    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).

    Isn't there a "Like" button around here someplace? This identifies the Left's fundamental approach as well as anything I've read.
     

    motorcoachdoug

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    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.


    If i do recall the California Solicitor General did admit before 9CA that 2A did exist outside the home when they were arguing Petra vs San Diego County ccw case
     
    Last edited:

    swamplynx

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 28, 2014
    678
    DC
    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.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    And in the 9th circus they’ll get away with it.

    If they want to hold the right doesn't extend past your door, then they can have at it. By the time the opinion comes down the scotus composition may be quite a bit different, and we'll have a clear circuit split on a very basic question.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Been wondering about Nichols pure open carry case would finally surface at CA9 after they said Concealed carry wasn’t protected. This is such a perfect case and so, so ripe following the Peruta en banc reversal.

    Enter the wet blanket, rain on the parade...

    Mr Nichols arrogance and smug attitude, openly admonishing 2A establishment folks (ie Gura/SAF) will undoubtedly come into play here.

    Will the parties swallow their pride and come together in support of the Nichols case, if not Mr Nichols personally? Would Mr Nichols accede?

    This one is important as all get out now. Hate the sanctimonious Nichols is the flag bearer and our last hope, at least for now. Hoping folks smarter than me can see the importance of this one, in this Circuit, and come together at this critical juncture in the definition of Keep and Bear...
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,921
    Messages
    7,259,078
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom