Three years ago today, Charles Nichols filed a lawsuit to overturn California’s 1967 ban on openly carrying loaded firearms. Some time later, he amended that lawsuit to challenge California’s other bans on openly carrying modern, unloaded firearms as well.
California doesn’t completely ban openly carry firearms, whether loaded or unloaded. There are exceptions, but there is no exception if the gun is carried for the purpose of self-defense.
Exceptions include carrying a firearm for such reasons as target shooting and hunting. One interesting exception is that lawyers can openly carry a firearm. This is interesting because they are one of the most powerful special interest groups in Sacramento.
The result of the first ever in-depth analysis of the Second Amendment carried out by the US Supreme Court was published in 2008. The Court’s conclusion was that: the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right unconnected with service in a militia, the central component of the Second Amendment right is self-defense, and although we have a right to carry firearms in case of confrontation, we do not have a right under the Second Amendment to carry weapons concealed.
That wasn’t the end of their pronouncements. In 2010, the US Supreme Court published another decision which said that the Second Amendment right is a fundamental, individual right, and what is even more interesting, is that it prohibits all states and local governments from infringing on that right.
The California legislature obviously didn’t like what the court said, because they responded to those decisions by making it a crime to openly carry modern, unloaded firearms.
Mr. Nichols says:
“Under current California law we can only carry unloaded, antique firearms for the purpose of self-defense and since most of us live within 1,000 feet of a K-12 public or private school and live in incorporated cities, we are prohibited from carrying even antique handguns.”
“With few exceptions, we can only carry unloaded, antique, muzzle-loading long guns for the purpose of self-defense. The California Legislature called this a reasonable regulation of the Second Amendment right.”
The so called gun-rights groups: the National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, the California Rifle and Pistol Association, the CalGuns Foundation, the Gun Owners of California/America and a couple of dozen groups you’ve probably never heard of have all either filed lawsuits in support of upholding Open Carry bans in California and elsewhere or they have filed legal briefs in support of those lawsuits opposing Open Carry. The NRA lawsuit, Peruta v. San Diego, not only argued to uphold California’s ban on openly carrying loaded firearms for the purpose of self-defense, the NRA argued in support of California’s Gun Free School Zone law.
The National Rifle Association filed a brief opposing Mr. Nichols’ preliminary injunction against California’s Open Carry bans and they released a video in which Nichols says the organization “falsely claimed that the NRA has always led the fight for Open Carry.”
“The liberal press won’t report the truth about the NRA and the other so called gun rights groups because the only thing they hate more than the Second Amendment is seeing someone exercising his Second Amendment right by openly carrying firearms. If these so called gun-rights groups are ripping off their gullible members then the liberal press couldn’t be happier.”
“The so called conservative press won’t report the truth because, let’s face it, they are a bunch of frightened old women who want to condition the exercise of your Second Amendment right on your having a government issued permission slip and even then, only if you carry a handgun and only if you carry your handgun concealed.” – Charles Nichols
Every single Federal and State Court of Appeals for nearly 200 years has held that there is no right to carry weapons concealed in public. Three of those decisions were by the US Supreme Court.
Nichols says California’s Attorney General, Kamala D. Harris, is desperately fighting to delay his appeal for as long as possible. He says the district court gave the Attorney General a free ride. Two leftist liberal judges “took her by the hand and went down the rabbit’s hole.” Nichols says he put an end to their nonsense by invoking legalese that forced the court to issue a final judgment – “I stand on/by my Complaint.”
Nichols suspects the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals may also give Attorney General Harris a free ride, but he says doing so would be a violation of the court’s own procedural law. Attorney General Harris’ latest motion seeks to indefinitely postpone his case, but it is absent of any rule or legal authority in support of the motion. He says if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals does grant the motion, they would be in violation of that court’s own procedural law.
Mr. Nichols’ opening brief is due on Tuesday December 2, 2014. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has sat on her motion to indefinitely postpone his appeal, but he is hoping for a Cyber Monday gift of an email from the Court notifying him that the Attorney General’s motion has been denied.
Nichols says the mainstream press should be interested in this case, but as this is the start of the fourth year, he won’t be holding his breath waiting for a request for interview. But perhaps with Cyber Monday in the rear view mirror, the press will be looking for a David v. Goliath story to tell.