CA Gov Brown asks Federal Judge to Dismiss Second Amendment Lawsuit

California Right To Carry
California Right To Carry

California –-(Ammoland.com)- Governor Brown has filed a motion to dismiss a Federal lawsuit which seeks to overturn California's ban on openly carrying loaded firearms in public.

If the lawsuit is successful, the recently enacted ban on openly carrying a handgun in public would be rendered unenforceable.

The Federal lawsuit was filed by Charles Nichols the President of California Right To Carry on November 30, 2011. Governor Brown was delivered a copy of the lawsuit on December 5, 2011 and was asked to voluntarily respond to the lawsuit without having to be issued a summons.

Governor Brown refused. He was formally served with a Federal summons last month.

Governor Brown's motion to dismiss claims that Federal Courts do not have jurisdiction to hear lawsuits seeking to overturn California gun control laws and therefore the case should be dismissed.

In 2008, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision affirming that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to carry firearms, particularly handguns for the purpose of self-defense. In 2010, the Court issued a subsequent decision applying the Second Amendment to all states and local governments.

The US Supreme Court said that when weapons are carried in public, they must be carried openly. The High Court said that nothing in their decision should be construed as affecting long standing prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons in public.

In 1967, California made it a crime to openly carry a loaded firearm in public. Firearms could be openly carried but they had to remain unloaded until one reasonably believed he was in danger. In 1981, the California Legislature changed the self-defense exception requiring firearms to remain unloaded until one was in “grave, immediate danger.” A point at which it is very likely too late to load a firearm to defend oneself.

In 2012, it became a crime to openly carry a handgun, loaded or unloaded, throughout most of California.

“Although it is almost impossible to sue a governor, my lawsuit establishes the necessary legal elements to include Governor Brown as a defendant. The chances of the judge granting the motion to dismiss are somewhere between zero and none.” said Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry

California Right To Carry
PO Box 1302
Redondo Beach, CA | 90278
CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

10
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
10 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
mitchellTodd WatkinsMicDon Starrblakdawg Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
mitchell
Guest
mitchell

No matter what state laws or any other laws its a violation of the 2nd amendment. Forget all the excuses everybody needs to be able to protect themselves and/or family. If someone was to break into my living area and I’m only allowed to have a bow and the intruder has a gun who’s going come out on top? I do believe they are infringing on rights as american citizens. I definetly agree there is a class action lawsuit. I’m going to fins the necessary steps to file a lawsuitagaints either the state or federal government. Whichever is required.

Todd Watkins
Guest
Todd Watkins

I travel 6 months per year outside the U.S. I served most of my adult life in the U.S. Army as a helicopter pilot. One promise I can make you…if we are not prepared to take a stand to protect the 2nd Amendment by using the 2nd Amendment, we will lose ALL of our rights. I have witnessed first hand what happens when the citizenry is disarmed. There is only one reason a politician wants gun-control….to obtain people-control. Make no mistake, there is no such thing as an honest politician pushing common sense gun laws.

Mic
Guest
Mic

Even if Nichols should win, there would be counter suits allowing the no carry law to stay in effect forever. That's the CA way, do something obtuse that isn't part of structured or "decided law" then leave the stinking mess in as an example of how the governed should have to live. That's about what D.C. has. It's very contagious. Weak leaders love weak laws to govern weak people with. Keep standing up Mr. Nichols. Everyone keep standing up.

Don Starr
Guest
Don Starr

"The US Supreme Court said that when weapons are carried in public, they must be carried openly."

Where, exactly, did the SCOTUS say this?

blakdawg
Guest
blakdawg

If Mr. Nichols wins, you better park in the garage or buy a car cover, because those flying pigs are going to make a big mess.

Otter
Guest
Otter

So if Mr. Nichols wins, does that mean that Californians will be able to carry "unloaded" weapons openly? Woopie!! They get to carry unloaded weapons and have them stolen by criminals that carry "loaded" weapons. I can hardly wait until the "big one" hits and California breaks off and floats away into the Pacific Ocean. We need California like we need unloaded weapons.

revjen45
Guest
revjen45

We left the Demokratik Peoples' Republik of Kalifornia in 1992. What a relief it was to leave a Communist country for Free America !! Ah well, the DPRK will soon become El Republico de Nuevo Aztlan and America will cease to be afflicted with the likes of Pelosi, Boxer, and Fineswine.

Charlie
Guest
Charlie

The Supreme Court did not say it had to be openly carried. It only said that there was a right to keep and bear arms. The problem is California has "May Issue" which courts have ruled as acceptable because open carry was allowed. No that open carry is no longer allowed there is a de facto ban on carrying as concealed permits are nearly impossible to get. This lawsuit had to be filed as a precurser to getting "Shall Issue" laws on the books. Maryland was recently slapped for their "May Issue" rules. Let's hope the same thing happens in… Read more »

Tim King
Guest
Tim King

I believe we the people should sue all the lawmakers for the injuries and deaths their draconian gun laws have caused. We have a GOD given right of self-defense. If the police could protect us there would be no victims. What part of "shall not be infringed", do they not understand? Does anyone see class action law suit?

Bob
Guest
Bob

Kudos from Texas, Charles.