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!
  • hvymax

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Apr 19, 2010
    14,011
    Dentsville District 28
    This should be national but will never be dignified by our current courts. What I read is a convincing argument based on Constitutional and Common law.
     
    Last edited:

    Markp

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 22, 2008
    9,392
    As if the folks at Cal Guns have ANY right to talk... they have lost more gun rights fights than anyone and they then go back and try to sugar coat the fail.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    They lose more fights because they're in the fight more often. Statistical fact.

    Sort of like arguing theres more of a chance of a gun death in houses that have guns. Or, more likelihood of falling down the steps in houses with stairs.

    We all owe Calguns, CGF, CRPA a bit of gratitude. California is birthplace of all things anti-gun. These groups are going up against the most rabid of the anti's in the biggest, most unfriendly of political environment.

    Yeah, they're going to lose a few. I'm glad we have them fighting the fight AND truly hope we can get an inkling of their organizational and litigative savvy here in MD when the time comes (which will be soon).

    This case is a steaming pile..."Carry" should be fought right now, not Manner of Carry ie Open. Last I heard, the fight was to get our right established "Outside the Home".

    There are a myriad of cases fighting for CARRY, 2 in CA alone (Richards, Peruta). A new one addressing OC is unnecessary and potentially harmful to the already broader, established cases.
     

    Al Norris

    Spud Head
    Dec 1, 2010
    746
    Rupert, Idaho
    Before anyone gets all exited about Mr. Nichols, perhaps you should read some of his "thoughts." There is this Examiner.com article: http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-a...inue-their-war-against-open-carry-the-nra-too

    Over at opencarry.org, Mr. Nichols was raising money for a lawsuit. Said he had a top-notch attorney ready to do the work. And he files this case, pro per.

    What happened to the money raised? What happened to that attorney?
     

    ezliving

    Besieger
    Oct 9, 2008
    4,590
    Undisclosed Secure Location
    Before anyone gets all exited about Mr. Nichols, perhaps you should read some of his "thoughts." There is this Examiner.com article: http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-a...inue-their-war-against-open-carry-the-nra-too

    Over at opencarry.org, Mr. Nichols was raising money for a lawsuit. Said he had a top-notch attorney ready to do the work. And he files this case, pro per.

    What happened to the money raised? What happened to that attorney?
    Not taking sides...

    Nichols' response to this is that an attorney is lined up for the inevitable appeal. Not much money has been raised and there are also non-attorney expenses in filing the initial lawsuit.

    Now, my opinion: I don't think this lawsuit has any legs. Just can't talk sense to some folks. Still, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. He's fighting his fight and I doubt he can do any harm.
     

    Al Norris

    Spud Head
    Dec 1, 2010
    746
    Rupert, Idaho
    Not taking sides...

    Nichols' response to this is that an attorney is lined up for the inevitable appeal. Not much money has been raised and there are also non-attorney expenses in filing the initial lawsuit.

    Now, my opinion: I don't think this lawsuit has any legs. Just can't talk sense to some folks. Still, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. He's fighting his fight and I doubt he can do any harm.

    I would offer three things.

    First, it is not what happens in the district court that could cause harm. It would be at the appellate level that whatever happens becomes precedent.

    Second, this is precisely the type of "maverick" undertaking that Alan Gura, the SAF and to a lessor extent the NRA, has warned us about.

    And finally, until the Courts agree that we have a right to carry in general, lawsuits aimed at a specific form of carry can backfire. This is generally called putting the cart before the horse.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    I would offer three things.

    First, it is not what happens in the district court that could cause harm. It would be at the appellate level that whatever happens becomes precedent.

    Second, this is precisely the type of "maverick" undertaking that Alan Gura, the SAF and to a lessor extent the NRA, has warned us about.

    And finally, until the Courts agree that we have a right to carry in general, lawsuits aimed at a specific form of carry can backfire. This is generally called putting the cart before the horse.

    Without wanting to criticize anyone for exercising their First Amendment rights, as a general matter, *winning* lawsuits is really important. FWIW, the civil rights revolution in the 50s and 60s took place in large measure *because* of very careful case selection by very smart people. Or, as Kenny Rogers says, "you got to know when to hold 'em and when to fold em" and "when to walk away and when to run." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXRq4L4BcbQ That's my two bits worth. Affivant sayth further not.
     

    Mike OTDP

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 12, 2008
    3,318
    Yes. It's worth taking a very close look at the tactics used by the NAACP's legal team in the 1940s and 1950s. They were very careful to file their first suits in friendly venues, win those, then take the precedent to win in neutral courts. Which gave them the clout to win on appeal.

    Firearm owners have not been that tactically savvy, and it costs us.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    It doesn't help that the friendly venues tend to have nothing of relevance to challenge. You can't challenge a carry ban where there isn't one.


    (Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)
     

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    32,877
    That last one by KC Brown made me stop and think.

    On Carry specifically, outside of ( Hi, Ca, Ma, NY, NJ,Md, and DC) the various legislatures are rapidly turning "good" carry laws even better. SAF has already sucuessfully chipping away on US Citizens vs Legally Resident Aliens.

    Is there anything significant left to challenge in a friendly environment, short of a Hail Mary attempt to overturn a Shall Issue scheme in favor of Constitutional Carry ? ( Speaking in terms of Carry per se, not EBR's or UBC's)
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    That last one by KC Brown made me stop and think.

    On Carry specifically, outside of ( Hi, Ca, Ma, NY, NJ,Md, and DC) the various legislatures are rapidly turning "good" carry laws even better. SAF has already sucuessfully chipping away on US Citizens vs Legally Resident Aliens.

    Is there anything significant left to challenge in a friendly environment, short of a Hail Mary attempt to overturn a Shall Issue scheme in favor of Constitutional Carry ? ( Speaking in terms of Carry per se, not EBR's or UBC's)

    There are a few, however they'd probably need to be done through state courts:
    Denver maintains a carry ban w/o CCW or reciprocal permit. Because they don't recognize non-res permits, this cuts off 20 plus residents from legally carrying there. The lawsuit would have to be an OC challenge because of Peterson.
    Several Oregon towns maintain a similar ban as Denver. Oregon doesn't recognize any other state permits and only offers non-res permits to residents of its border states.
    SC also doesn't recognize non-res permits, only has reciprocity with 20-30 states, and has no unlicensed OC.
     

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    32,877
    At first glance CO and SC seem like matters for their state legislature, not so much the courts. I'm up on the state level Ore, have to look into the municipalities..
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    At first glance CO and SC seem like matters for their state legislature, not so much the courts. I'm up on the state level Ore, have to look into the municipalities..

    SC may end up with a fix this year. CO has been on a decline and won't fix it through the legislature
    Their supreme Court has made some good rulings though.
     

    Elliotte

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 11, 2011
    1,207
    Loudoun County VA
    That last one by KC Brown made me stop and think.

    On Carry specifically, outside of ( Hi, Ca, Ma, NY, NJ,Md, and DC) the various legislatures are rapidly turning "good" carry laws even better. SAF has already sucuessfully chipping away on US Citizens vs Legally Resident Aliens.

    Is there anything significant left to challenge in a friendly environment, short of a Hail Mary attempt to overturn a Shall Issue scheme in favor of Constitutional Carry ? ( Speaking in terms of Carry per se, not EBR's or UBC's)

    There's a couple of ways to potentially approach this. You can go after normally friendly venues that have oddball restrictions (such as VA's restriction against carrying loaded pistols with mags over 20 rounds or loaded pistols with a threaded barrel, unless you have a CHP) or go after friendly states that happen to have a Dem/Moderate GOP in power at the time (VA's Gov, OK's Gov, etc).

    The idea is to remove as many restrictions as possible, in as many places as possible. Take a look at the Taser thread and the places that are getting taken to court and giving up with little (or no) fight.
     

    California Right To Carry

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Mar 4, 2014
    12
    Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution

    Without wanting to criticize anyone for exercising their First Amendment rights, as a general matter, *winning* lawsuits is really important. FWIW, the civil rights revolution in the 50s and 60s took place in large measure *because* of very careful case selection by very smart people. Or, as Kenny Rogers says, "you got to know when to hold 'em and when to fold em" and "when to walk away and when to run." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXRq4L4BcbQ That's my two bits worth. Affivant sayth further not.

    I did study law in college back in the late 1970s and was reminded what a professor once told us. "The only thing better than having 100 years of precedents in support of your case is to have a recent decision affirming those 100 years of precedents."

    All of these concealed carry appeals argued that where the Heller decision said that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution and that concealed carry is not a right and can therefore be prohibited, what the Heller decision actually said was that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry.

    The Peruta v. San Diego en banc decision cited 475 years of case law and statutes under both American and English law which proved that there is no right to carry weapons concealed in public.

    Mine is a pure Open Carry case. I did not make any Second Amendment argument which conflicts with Baldwin, Heller, McDonald, Caetano or those 475 years of case law and other authorities cited by the majority in the Peruta en banc decision.

    Nor is my case limited to public places or limited to handguns. Under California law, all I have to do in order to violate the 1967 ban on Loaded Open Carry is to lean one inch outside the door of my home into the curtilage of my home with a loaded firearm.

    Not to mention that it was nice of the California Solicitor General to concede during the Peruta en banc oral arguments that the Second Amendment extends beyond the curtilage of one's home into public places, but only for firearms openly carried.

    And unlike Peruta v. San Diego which has no SCOTUS Rule 10 split, were I to lose on appeal then my loss would create multiple SCOTUS Rule 10 splits.

    :)
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,919
    Messages
    7,258,782
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom