| | |
|
| For Immediate Release/Redondo Beach CA/Press@CaliforniaRightToCarry.org | |
|
|
| | |
|  | |
| | |
Unless you have been off-line in a remote section of the Amazon rainforest for the last week or so you have undoubtedly heard or read something about the National Rifle Association press release of May 30th which condemned the Second Amendment right to openly carry firearms saying that Open Carry is “weird.”
Today, that link to that press release has been replaced with a video prefaced with the following ludicrous claim by NRA Chief Lobbyist Chris W. Cox “Unequivocally, we support open carry. We've been the leader of open carry efforts across this country.”
Has the NRA ever filed a lawsuit seeking to restore our right to openly carry firearms in public for the purpose of self-defense? No! Has the NRA ever filed a lawsuit seeking to preserve a ban on Open Carry? Yes! Has the NRA ever opposed a lawsuit seeking to overturn a ban on Open Carry? Yes!
On April 21, 2010 the National Rifle Association took over a lawsuit filed by a lone plaintiff, Edward Peruta, who sought and was denied a concealed carry permit from San Diego Sheriff William Gore – Peruta v. San Diego. The NRA added a handful of plaintiffs and its official state organization The California Rifle and Pistol Association as a plaintiff and is funding the lawsuit.
The NRA lawyer, Chuck Michel, argued in the Peruta case that California can ban the Open Carry of firearms in public if it wants to. Mr. Michel “warned” the court that if Mr. Peruta and his fellow plaintiffs did not get their permits to carry handguns concealed in public it would entail overturning the ban on openly carrying loaded firearms in public, a ban which the State of California enacted in July of 1967. Mr. Michel neglected to mention that the National Rifle Association endorsed that ban in 1967.
Mr. Michel also warned the court that if his clients did not prevail then that would also entail the overturning of California's Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995. Mr. Michel told the court that would be drastic (his words not mine). Not only does the NRA oppose Open Carry, the NRA supports gun free school zones and supports them where it does the most harm, in our Federal courts.
In 2010 and 2011 I sought the support of the NRA, including the NRA lobbyist Mr. Cox who refused to even speak with me directly. Mr. Cox said he would only speak with my attorney. And so in May of 2011 I began raising funds to hire an attorney for my lawsuit to overturn California's ban on openly carrying loaded firearms in public.
The NRA immediately sent out an email to all of its Members' Councils in California opposing my lawsuit. This was six months before I had even filed my lawsuit in Federal Court. The letter was of course filled with lies and disinformation, but such is the nature of the NRA leadership.
On September 11, 2013 the NRA filed a motion in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asking that the appeal of my denial of my preliminary injunction be stayed pending the outcome of its concealed carry lawsuit – Peruta v. San Diego. Given that my appeal was a denial of a preliminary injunction I was entitled to a priority hearing. My appeal was fully briefed on October 3, 2013. Oral arguments would have been scheduled by March but it was not to be. An assistant clerk filed a stay of my appeal over my objection and over the objection of California Attorney General Kamala Harris.
On February 13, 2013 the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals published its decision in the Peruta case but immediately stayed the decision going into effect pending the determination of an en banc petition for rehearing by Attorney General Harris.
A lot has happened in the Federal Appellate Courts since Mr. Peruta first filed his concealed carry lawsuit. Every Federal Court of Appeals and every state court which has had a concealed carry case come before it, save a divided two judge decision in the Peruta case, has held that the carrying of concealed weapons falls outside of the scope of the Second Amendment because in the landmark decision on the Second Amendment by the United States Supreme Court – District of Columbia v. Heller the High Court said this:
"[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.
The US Supreme Court has turned down every cert petition which sought the “shall-issue” of concealed carry permits.
The NRA lawyer, Mr. Michel, now says that the odds are two to one that the Peruta decision will be reversed. The NRA cert petition will be denied. Every concealed carry case pending before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will then collapse. The Supreme Court is not going to reverse itself. Especially not this Supreme Court with Justices Scalia and Thomas as members.
When that happens there will be only one case left standing, my Open Carry case which has always argued that the Second Amendment means exactly what the Supreme Court said in the Heller decision, that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution.
It is too late for the NRA to file its own Open Carry lawsuit, even if it wanted to which it clearly does not. My Open Carry lawsuit is not limited to bearing arms in public, I also seek to vindicate our right to keep and carry firearms on our own residential property. When the 1967 ban was enacted it exempted private property. The liberal California courts have all but eliminated that exemption. Unless your home is fully enclosed by a tall, sturdy fence or other significant barrier to keep the public out, the California courts have concluded that everything outside the door of your home is a “public place” at least where firearms are concerned.
The Federal District Court judge assigned to my case went even further and held that not only does the Second Amendment not apply to one's home, your Second and Fourth Amendment rights do not exist, even in places where it is legal to openly carry firearms.
It took me two and a half years acting as my own attorney but I finally obtained a final, appealable judgment from the district court. Thanks to the decision of this liberal district court judge, my appeal is perfectly framed. Either the US Supreme Court meant what it said or it did not. When my case, and my case alone, is finally decided we will have an answer to that question.
Meanwhile, the NRA will still oppose Open Carry and despite what it says to its members, it will always be a matter of public record that in the case of Peruta v. San Diego the NRA opposed Open Carry and supported gun free school zones.
Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
###
|
|
|
|
| |
| | |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment