Lawsuit Seeks to Overturn California Open Carry Ban

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by Mrbroom

According to their web page, they have raised $4700 so far for the suit.. What would a case like this roughly cost overall?

Suing Chicago was $300,000 or so. I think D.C. Was in excess of $1M. But I'm sure that Kamla Harris won't defend as vigorously as the city of Chicago,since she is so pro-gun. I'm sure they plan on getting financially bailed out once they lose in district. They think there will be too much at risk for NRA, SAF, and CRPA to let them fall flat on their face. Once they run out of money and expertise (about 500 yards from the courthouse) they'll hope the experts step in and fund/drive the suit and they'll get their names on important legislation.

The worst that could happen? We get a corollary Nunn rype of ruling out of it. Think about the implications of that! It would be TERRIBLE for all gun owners nationwide.

[pietropau9]

Originally Posted by rezin23

These types of cases should be left to the CGF, NRA, SAF etc, why do people insist on shooting themselves in the foot?

Because these groups wont touch it. I havent seen the NRA do much of anything in CA. I don't know enough of the legalee's to form an opinion but I love how calguns uniformly knocks down every open carry person and idea. Like if your idea's were any better maybe you might get off your *** and do something instead of talk. And I'm tired of hearing about all the gains "we" are making. Seems to me they give us one and take two. At least the open carriers are getting off their asses and doing something. They might not have the right ideas or conform to what YOU want but I see them as having balls.

Before you hang me just let me say I don't care which way it ends. open, concealed, shall issue, loaded, or unloaded. I just would like something decided before im too old to pick up my guns.

[AragornElessar86]

Originally Posted by pietropau9

Before you hang me just let me say I don't care which way it ends. open, concealed, shall issue, loaded, or unloaded. I just would like something decided before im too old to pick up my guns.

And now, because of rash, uninformed folks like Nichols, there's a significant danger that you won't. Congrats on supporting the Brady's.

[SanPedroShooter]

But just doing anything is better than developing a winning strategy right?


Bouncing ideas here is one thing, thats what we do. Bouncing them off a judge is another story...

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by pietropau9

Because these groups wont touch it. I havent seen the NRA do much of anything in CA. I don't know enough of the legalee's to form an opinion but I love how calguns uniformly knocks down every open carry person and idea. Like if your idea's were any better maybe you might get off your *** and do something instead of talk. And I'm tired of hearing about all the gains "we" are making.

The NRA is far from perfect, but they are certainly active and working hard in CA. Why did the ammo ban get killed? Do you have any clue How many lawsuits NRA, CRPA, SAF, and CGF have running in CA right now? Do you own an AR pattern weapon? AK? Would you like a 1911 that isn't on the roster? Well, who you gonna thank?

Originally Posted by pietropau9

Seems to me they give us one and take two.

"They" dont give is squat. Whet we have, weve taken back.

Originally Posted by pietropau9

At least the open carriers are getting off their asses and doing something. They might not have the right ideas or conform to what YOU want but I see them as having balls.

Never misinterpret action as progress? The actions of some in the OC movement have caused problems that may well delay rather than speed up the eventual regaining of carry rights in CA. Even worse, they could munge up OC for all. The "movement" may well screw up those of us who are actually working strategically to return OC to California.

Originally Posted by pietropau9

Before you hang me just let me say I don't care which way it ends. open, concealed, shall issue, loaded, or unloaded. I just would like something decided before im too old to pick up my guns.

If you cont care then just go through the silly hos your sheriff or chief has put in place and get you concealed carry license. Many will disagree and choose to fight for what is right rather than just anything that lets one be armed. Unless you plan on losing the ability to use your guns in the next 24 months you should be good even of you don't want to go through all the trouble of applying under the current system.

[AragornElessar86]

Originally Posted by SanPedroShooter

Bouncing ideas here is one thing, thats what we do. Bouncing them off a judge is another story...

Amen brother! If you guys don't think that the antis have a concerted, unified strategy you're just plain naive. To beat them we need to do the same, only better. Loose cannons like Nichols and to some extent Peruta pose a serious threat to our grand strategy.

[pietropau9]

FEDERAL INJUNCTION TO BE FILED AGAINST CALIFORNIA OPEN CARRY BAN

Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit to be filed on Anniversary of Second Amendment







On December 15, 1791, Virginia became the 10th of 14 states to approve 10 of the 12 proposed amendments to the United States Constitution; giving the Bill of Rights the two-thirds majority of state ratification necessary to go into effect.




On December 15, 2011 a Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit will be filed seeking an injunction against a California law that was passed in 1967 which makes it a crime to openly carry a loaded firearm.




Ironically, the law recently passed by the California Legislature and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown (AB 144) making it a crime to openly carry even an unloaded handgun has greatly simplified the lawsuit. Under a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in May of 2011 it would have been necessary to show that the California law which requires openly carried firearms to be unloaded until one was in grave, immediate danger was a “substantial burden.”




With the passage of AB 144, this will no longer be necessary. The California Legislature has created a mirror image of the landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court. The decision, issued in 2008, held that the individual has the right to openly carry a loaded firearm for the purpose of self-defense; except in certain “sensitive” places such as schools and government buildings. The High Court held that a law banning handguns, even though it exempted long guns (rifles and shotguns) was unconstitutional.




Two Federal lawsuits which had been brought in California to obtain permits to carry handguns concealed failed, in part, because the Federal judges cited the exception to California law for openly carrying a loaded handgun when one was in grave, immediate danger. With the passage of AB 144, that exception no longer exists. The Chief Federal Judge for the Southern District of California said she was unable to rule on whether or not the section of the California Penal Code making it a crime to openly carry a loaded handgun before one was in danger was constitutional, because neither party challenged the constitutionality of the law (Penal Code section 12031). The attorney for the defendant in that case, the Sheriff of San Diego County argued that the Heller decision did not apply outside of the home. The attorney also argued that the Second Amendment should not apply to the County of San Diego because it was located near the Mexican border. The Federal judge in the case did not buy either of those arguments.




The lawsuit seeking an injunction to California Penal Code section 12031, to the extent it makes it a crime to openly carry a loaded firearm for the purpose of self-defense will be brought in the Federal Central District of California.




Donations to the legal fund can be made here → http://do.nr/4Rj and here → http://tinyurl.com/PC12031Lawsuit




Supporters of the lawsuit seeking a Federal injunction against California Penal Code section 12031 which would restore the ability of Californians to openly carry a loaded firearm for the purpose of self-defense include:




California Right To Carry

Riverside Open Carry Club

Inland Empire Open Carry

California Carry

The2A

Orange County Open Carry

OpenCarryClub.com

Bay Area Open Carry Movement

California Open Carry Movement




Quoting from the United States Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia v Heller (2008)




“Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District’s handgun ban. And some of those few have been struck down. In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns. Ibid. See also State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840) (“A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”). It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”




California law requires that long guns be kept unloaded, something which the United States Supreme Court also held to be unconstitutional in the D.C. v. Heller case.







###







If you would like more information about this topic, please send inquiries to Charles Nichols: email Press@CaliforniaRightToCarry.org




California Right To Carry is a California nonprofit registered with the California Secretary of State. It does not solicit or accept public donations for its organization. Operating expenses are provided entirely by its membership.




100% of the donations to the legal fund will be used for the Federal lawsuit. None of the money goes to the organization – California Right To Carry. Donations are not tax deductible.




http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org/Pr...C10262011.html

[pietropau9]

In my neck of the woods concealed carry is not an option. I dont know how it is where you live but we are in the area where you cant get one. I dont deal with money. No one is trying to kill me. Im not a cop. Therefore, i dont qualify.

[pietropau9]

I don't know CN from anyone else. Couldn't point him out in a lineup. I am far from an expert on open carry v/s concealed carry and am not affiliated with any groups.

I've already stated my position on the open carry group that I am familiar with. Didn't like what they stood for and their anti-LE stance. I just wish reasonable people could get together and work together that would benefit all of us. But the bottom line is, as far as I see it anyway, is that calguns dont like the open carry and OC thinks calguns, nra, etc... are against open carry so they are constantly bickering.

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by pietropau9

In my neck of the woods concealed carry is not an option. I dont know how it is where you live but we are in the area where you cant get one. I dont deal with money. No one is trying to kill me. Im not a cop. Therefore, i dont qualify.

Riverside county is not that hard to get a license issued in. Read the thread on riverside county in Carry license forum area http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/f...play.php?f=116 if you are a camper or hiker or just travel to areas with poor espouse times and/or no cell phone coverage you can probably write up acceptable good cause statement with the help of thepeople in that thread.

Just one more thing that CGF is "not" doing.

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by pietropau9

I've already stated my position on the open carry group that I am familiar with. Didn't like what they stood for and their anti-LE stance. I just wish reasonable people could get together and work together that would benefit all of us. But the bottom line is, as far as I see it anyway, is that calguns dont like the open carry and OC thinks calguns, nra, etc... are against open carry so they are constantly bickering.

CG, NRA etc. are not against open carry. They are against people who refuse to working the same strategic plan as the biggest brains and pocketbooks in the fight. Even if the UOC "movement" was trying toward alongside therest of the community it focus on their agenda it could be worked out. The problem is that whole reasonable people can work together, one party is being completely unreasonable. You have properly identified the unreasonable group above. There are a lot of open carry advocates who are working handin hand with the rest of the groups. You just don't hear as much from them for timing reasons. It's the so-called "movement" that refuses to work together with the rest of the community that is getting attention.

[fiddletown]

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

An astute observation. ...

Given the selection of challenging 626.9 or 12031, I think going after an imaginary 'enchanted zone' would be a better choice (although at present stands a similar chance of success), than striking the loaded prohibition.

And let's not forget the federal GFSZ law, 18 USC 922(q). Even if the California GFSZ law could be blunted in some way, we still have federal law effectively making it generally unlawful to carry a loaded gun in a school zone unless:

"...the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;..."(18 USC 922(q)(2)(B)(ii))

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Originally Posted by QQQ

This lawsuit is about LOC, not UOC.

I would much prefer legalized LOC over shall-issue LTC any day of the week and twice on Sunday. However, it would still be a bummer if this lawsuit takes years and holds up LTC.

With ya 100%. But, it would help a great deal if there was a good legal mind running the suit & that doesn't seem to be the case here.

OTOH, all he really has to do is quote what the Bradys, et al, have filed in opposition to all the LTC suits. Maybe that'll carry the day.

As for the GFSZ (state & Federal), they were always unconstitutional anyway. If unlicensed LOC is restored as the palladium of the Right, it'll be an enumerated Right vs. an unconstitutional POS. That might be all that's needed.


The Raisuli

[fiddletown]

Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli

....As for the GFSZ (state & Federal), they were always unconstitutional anyway....

Not until SCOTUS says so. So that's another multimillion dollar lawsuit, a bunch of years and some risk away. On the other hand, both state and federal GFSZ laws except persons with a state issued LTC.

If we get a shall issue LTC in California, we can be carrying our guns; and GFSZ is a non-issue. Then while we're carrying our guns legally, albeit concealed, even through a GFSZ, we can be working on open carry and the whole GFSZ business.

[Mrbroom]

Originally Posted by fiddletown

If we get a shall issue LTC in California, we can be carrying our guns; and GFSZ is a non-issue. Then while we're carrying our guns legally, albeit concealed, even through a GFSZ, we can be working on open carry and the whole GFSZ business.

^^This^^

[mag360]

make this thing go away! Other cases need to move forward. Please! And pietropau9 you have MUCH to learn. Buckle up!

[Kharn]

How does that quote go? "Somebody's always trying to ice skate uphill?"

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by Kharn

How does that quote go? "Somebody's always trying to ice skate uphill?"

It's actually "There's always some mother****er who tries to ice skate uphill".

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

It's Charles Nichols. What's not clear yet is whether John Birdt is going to be involved. Either way it is a Charlie Foxtrot.

-Gene

Gene, please tell me that lawsuits by "the Right People" (TM) are too far along to be damaged by a (presumably) well meaning loose cannon.

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Gene, please tell me that lawsuits by "the Right People" (TM) are too far along to be damaged by a (presumably) well meaning loose cannon.

Yes and no.

The lawsuits that CGF/SAF and NRA have all filed and supported are all far enough along that this should not directly hurt them. For those claiming that we're all doing nothing, that means you're reading nothing. There are 5 cases in California on carry alone. I suggest you stop slagging on things that you're undereducated about.

Here is the sad truth. All Charles Nichols is about to do is to make it much harder to expand the right to carry beyond concealed licensed carry. While we're all proving that carry is a real right but may be subject to some manner restrictions, he's going to go lose a case in District Court that will damage the battle field for any post licensing/concealed basic securing.

All Charles Nichols will do is lose and lose in such a way as to limit everyone's ability to expand the right to carry beyond shall issue licenses and concealed...

Folks would do well to read this in depth scholarly work on what state supreme courts that take the right to self defense as a basis to an RKBA have actually said about the right to carry in public: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1949477

It's written by a person who actually has some academic credibility - not some ranting, raving individual too afraid to actually even meet with me face to face. But he can take on the government!

-Gene

[OleCuss]

OK, let's say that you get dizzy, you fall, you break your hip.

Well, the obvious thing is to go get your hip bolted together, right? Everyone would agree that would make sense!

That would be the idiot thing to do. Maybe you had a heart attack leading to the dizziness and an abnormal rhythm which led to your fall? Maybe you had a transient ischemic attack which made you pass out - and you go under anesthesia and have a stressful surgery and stroke out? Maybe you had a run of Ventricular Fibrillation - again, undiagnosed and untreated anesthesia and a stressful surgery could kill you. Maybe you're anemic? Maybe you're dehydrated?

And why bother with X-rays? You know that the hip is broken. It's not like you need to look at the precise location of the fracture, the length of the neck of the femur, etc. I mean, it doesn't really matter that you have exactly the right hardware on hand for the procedure. I mean, so what if afterward you have a bolt sticking out of your hip?

The point is that doing the obvious thing without the proper investigation and specifically targeted preparation could easily kill you because you just went ahead and did the obvious thing.

This lawsuit is like someone saying that there is a broken hip so they are going to ask their carpenter to take their pocketknife, get out some bolts and screws, go into the hip and screw it back together somehow. After all, an Orthopedist is just doing carpentry on the bones using knives, saws, screws, plates, hardware, bolts, and screwdrivers - as well as drills and the like.

Also, remember that a good butcher is great with a knife - and can probably open a skull swiftly and skillfully. So why bother hiring a brain surgeon who will cost so much more?

So far as I can tell, this lawsuit is going after AB144 on 2A grounds and is possibly darned nearly as stupid as hiring a butcher to do brain surgery or getting a carpenter to repair a broken hip.

Maybe they're doing a feint and will actually sue on 1A grounds in which case I'll be a bit more supportive. As it is, I don't want anyone to have anything to do with something this brain-dead.

Edit: Not meaning any disrespect for butchers and carpenters. Pretty dumb to hire an Orthopedist to do your carpentry or to get a brain surgeon to butcher your pig.

[CitaDeL]

Originally Posted by OleCuss

So far as I can tell, this lawsuit is going after AB144 on 2A grounds and is possibly darned nearly as stupid as hiring a butcher to do brain surgery or getting a carpenter to repair a broken hip.

This lawsuit is not going after Portantino's AB-144.
This lawsuit is challenging 12031 (The Mulford Act) as unconstitutional.

[OleCuss]

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

This lawsuit is not going after Portantino's AB-144.
This lawsuit is challenging 12031 (The Mulford Act) as unconstitutional.

Technically, I believe you are correct. But since the lawsuit is not yet actually available. . . Not quite incorrect to say that it is going after AB144 since it is now pretty intimately tied into things (as intimated in the write-up above). But I'll give you the point on that one.

Oh, well. We'll see what it actually says in a month and a half. I shall hope for more than I expect.

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

This lawsuit is not going after Portantino's AB-144.
This lawsuit is challenging 12031 (The Mulford Act) as unconstitutional.

The point still stands.

[jamesob]

Agreed, but what if actually wins?

Originally Posted by hoffmang

Yes and no.

The lawsuits that CGF/SAF and NRA have all filed and supported are all far enough along that this should not directly hurt them. For those claiming that we're all doing nothing, that means you're reading nothing. There are 5 cases in California on carry alone. I suggest you stop slagging on things that you're undereducated about.

Here is the sad truth. All Charles Nichols is about to do is to make it much harder to expand the right to carry beyond concealed licensed carry. While we're all proving that carry is a real right but may be subject to some manner restrictions, he's going to go lose a case in District Court that will damage the battle field for any post licensing/concealed basic securing.

All Charles Nichols will do is lose and lose in such a way as to limit everyone's ability to expand the right to carry beyond shall issue licenses and concealed...

Folks would do well to read this in depth scholarly work on what state supreme courts that take the right to self defense as a basis to an RKBA have actually said about the right to carry in public: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1949477

It's written by a person who actually has some academic credibility - not some ranting, raving individual too afraid to actually even meet with me face to face. But he can take on the government!

-Gene

[fiddletown]

Originally Posted by jamesob

Agreed, but what if actually wins?

Yea, and what if Obama comes out in support of repealing the NFA and gives each member of the NRA an M4, with can, for Christmas?

[HowardW56]

Originally Posted by fiddletown

Yea, and what if Obama comes out in support of repealing the NFA and gives each member of the NRA an M4, with can, for Christmas?

[radioman]

it is a little nuts to carry an empty gun, and as of 1/1/12 it will be illegal. from what I read there going after loaded carry, pre 1967. I hope they can find the money and someone that can get the job done. yes they may get in the way but don't flame them for trying.

[JoeJinKY]

I love how you California folks maintain hope of EVER getting anything from the California politicians and judges. All of your efforts are seen as having a snowball's chance in Hell by states that understand the 2nd Amendment.

Instead of crafting carefully worded, delicate, balanced cases to present to judges who sleep with Obama and Pulosi, I think you would make FAR better progress by ignoring them completely!

Put your time and money and effort into educating the public. Let the PEOPLE know that they could be enjoying the same rights that folks like ME enjoy in the Great State of Kentucky, if only they would elect Sheriffs and Police Chiefs that aren't graduates of the Gore-Hutchins Academy of Communist Oppression.

Guys, get the PUBLIC to elect Sheriffs and police chiefs and others who WILL NOT arrest you for exercising you 2A right, and it won't matter what the squat-pi**ers rant about in Sacramento! Gun laws that forbid you to (X,Y and Z) are impotent when those responsible for enforcing those laws WILL ignore them.

Support guys like Joe Arpaio and Jay LaSuer, and others who WANT "Shall Issue." Ignore the court cases and the rulings and everything. It won't matter WHAT the law mandates, if those who are charged with arresting people who break those laws WILL NOT arrest you!

Get the public to support your cause. They will vote in the cops and sheriffs and marshalls who RESPECT an individual's RKBA, and the problem will be solved.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by JoeJinKY

Get the public to support your cause. They will vote in the cops and sheriffs and marshalls who RESPECT an individual's RKBA, and the problem will be solved.

By what means do you suggest we 'go to the public'?

Our 2 big population concentrations are San Francisco/San Jose and Los Angeles/Orange County.

The print and broadcast media in those areas are uniformly anti-gun, to the point that they REFUSE paid pro-gun information/advertising.

It's worse than that. "2nd Amend. Related Legal & Political Discussion" is a pretty active forum. Members of Calguns could reasonably be expected to be interested in gun rights, and laws that might affect them.

A good chunk of Calguns membership pops up every June asking 'Hey, why didn't anybody tell me about bill X?' Many members never visit the 2A forum.

If people who are interested enough to sign up for a gun board membership never hear about some of these things, how much less do folks care who are not so interested as our members?

THAT'S why lawsuits for civil rights are the right vehicle. Just as your average George Wallace voter would never have voted in favor of civil rights for black people, your average California voter is unlikely to vote for civil rights for gun owners.

[wildhawker]

Originally Posted by radioman

it is a little nuts to carry an empty gun, and as of 1/1/12 it will be illegal. from what I read there going after loaded carry, pre 1967. I hope they can find the money and someone that can get the job done. yes they may get in the way but don't flame them for trying.

The logic fail here is, well...

-Brandon

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by JoeJinKY

Instead of crafting carefully worded, delicate, balanced cases to present to judges who sleep with Obama and Pulosi, I think you would make FAR better progress by ignoring them completely!

I'll buy you a round trip ticket (see! I'm being optimistic!) You bring your favorite handgun and loaded open carry it down Market Street.

We'll be right there filming you.

-Gene

[m03]

Originally Posted by JoeJinKY

Get the public to support your cause. They will vote in the cops and sheriffs and marshalls who RESPECT an individual's RKBA, and the problem will be solved.

Yeah, we could spend years doing all that. Or, we could just win it via the courts and not have to worry about what the public has been duped into believing by their latest well-funded savior.

BTW, I just donated $20 to the CGF

[jdberger]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

It's Charles Nichols. What's not clear yet is whether John Birdt is going to be involved. Either way it is a Charlie Foxtrot.

-Gene

Who IS John Birdt?



Stay tuned for t-shirts.

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

LOL. More than the $5,000.00 that they have been trying to raise since June(?). I pointed out elsewhere that the Nordykes have been in their fight for over a decade and probably have spent many times that over and their remedy has not been achieved.

One has to question the reasonableness of arbitrarily picking $5,000 as the necessary funding level to pursue a suit and begging the charity of others because you either do not have the ability or are unwilling to self fund your efforts. Further, if counsel is making this demand for payment and the cause is so worthy and winable, why wouldnt they be doing it pro-bono?

You make some great points! Why not do it pro Bono for what they think will be a land-mark win. And yeah, why 5k? Is that the attorneys retainer? How far do they expect that to get them

[jdberger]

Originally Posted by JoeJinKY

I love how you California folks maintain hope of EVER getting anything from the California politicians and judges. All of your efforts are seen as having a snowball's chance in Hell by states that understand the 2nd Amendment.loved.

Really, Sugar?

Which was the First Court to incorporate the 2nd Amendment? Which case? In which City? And Counsel was based outta which State?

Ready, Sweetie?

9th Circuit
Nordyke v King
San Francisco
California.

Learn your history, Sonny.

You'll look less like an *** in polite company.

[safewaysecurity]

Originally Posted by radioman

it is a little nuts to carry an empty gun, and as of 1/1/12 it will be illegal. from what I read there going after loaded carry, pre 1967. I hope they can find the money and someone that can get the job done. yes they may get in the way but don't flame them for trying.

Here's the problem though. His "trying" actually has consequences. If he loses it's more bad precedent against us.

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by jdberger

Really, Sugar?

Which was the First Court to incorporate the 2nd Amendment? Which case? In which City? And Counsel was based outta which State?

Ready, Sweetie?

9th Circuit
Nordyke v King
San Francisco
California.

Learn your history, Sonny.

You'll look less like an *** in polite company.

You don't mess with the JD. He'll cut you.

[fiddletown]

Originally Posted by jdberger

Who IS John Birdt?...

I just sent an email to John Galt asking that very question.

Originally Posted by JoeJinKY

.... get the PUBLIC to elect Sheriffs and police chiefs and others who WILL NOT arrest you for exercising you 2A right, and it won't matter what the squat-pi**ers rant about in Sacramento! Gun laws that forbid you to (X,Y and Z) are impotent when those responsible for enforcing those laws WILL ignore them....

And just how do you suggest accomplishing that? Do you really thing there's any way to get the public in especially the major urban counties of California to elect sheriffs who will not enforce guns laws? Oh, and around here chiefs of police are appointed, not elected.

[G60]

Joe, if that's how it worked in the real world, that's what we'd be doing.