Source: http://californiaopencarry.com/status-of-my-federal-open-carry-lawsuit/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:35:36+00:00

Document:
The Search Engines were sending people to my Archived California Open Carry Lawsuit Status Pages Containing the Updates Prior to 9/21/2018 and so I had to Disable them.
The links to Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Related Cert Petitions which are Pending before SCOTUS, Cert Granted, or Candidates for Cert have been moved to the bottom of this page.
On November 30, 2011, I walked into the old Federal courthouse for the Central District of California in downtown Los Angeles and filed my lawsuit to overturn California’s ban on openly carrying loaded firearms in public.
I am now in my 8th year of litigation.
It has been 434 days since oral argument took place in my California Open Carry lawsuit, Nichols v. Brown (now Nichols v. Newsom).
We are still waiting on a final decision in Young v. Hawaii after which there will be a decision by the three-judge panel assigned to my appeal.
If SCOTUS grants a 2A cert petition before there is a final decision in my appeal (it did) here in the 9th circuit then my appeal, as well as any other 2A related case on appeal will be stayed pending a decision by SCOTUS (they are). Given the glacial pace which the 9th circuit decides Second Amendment cases, it is more likely than not that this will happen. As such, this status page is not devoted exclusively to listing the latest docket entries to my appeal. As the judge made law of this circuit dictates that my Second Amendment challenge is dependent on the outcome of the Young v. Hawaii appeal because Young v. Hawaii was submitted for a decision three days before mine, I will be paying particularly close attention to that appeal.
Update – April 11, 2019, – Mance and Pena survived for another SCOTUS conference.
Update – April 11, 2019, – Mark Baird’s lawsuit was filed in the wrong division (Fresno) of the Federal Eastern District of California. It has now been transferred to the Sacramento Division.
The presiding judge is an anti-gun Obama judge responsible for the Pena v. Lindley decision.
Update – April 9, 2019, – Mark Baird filed his “sort of” open carry lawsuit. The lawsuit is limited to handguns and the Complaint is full of holes but no matter.
Mr. Baird said he would send me a copy of his Complaint for me to read so I could add my 2 cents worth before he filed it. Obviously, that did not happen.
Update – April 4, 2019, – The Gould et al v. Morgan et al handgun carry docket is now live at SCOTUS.
Update – April 2, 2019, – The Gould et al v. Morgan et al handgun carry cert petition was filed on April 1, 2019. I don’t have the current docket number but here is a link to the petition. It is 143 pages long which means that you will likely have to download it to your local computer before viewing.
Update – March 29, 2019, – The NRA-ILA sent out a press release stating that it had just filed a concealed carry lawsuit in Hawaii. The press release did not contain a link to the Complaint and so at great expense (approximately $2.50) I have downloaded the Complaint in Livingston v. Ballard and posted it here. There are several fatal defects with the Complaint but given that the Second Amendment “outside of the home” issue will have been decided long before this latest lawsuit is decided in the 9th circuit court of appeals, this NRA lawsuit is meaningless.
Update – March 11, 2019, – Governor Gavin Newsom was officially substituted for former Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., et al as a defendant in my California Open Carry lawsuit. We can only hope that there is a favorable decision in my lawsuit before he too is term-limited and replaced by another governor.
Update – February 15, 2019, – One year ago today, I argued my California #OpenCarry appeal before a three-judge panel of the 9th circuit court of appeals.
I was the third non-attorney in 20 years who had been allowed to argue his pro se case in the 9th circuit court of appeals and only the second who had argued a civil rights appeal (the third was a bankruptcy appeal).
The two prior pro se appellants won their appeal.
I raised seven issues in my appeal. The State of California conceded that unloaded guns are not loaded and conceded that neither the district court nor the court of appeals has the authority to dismiss my state law claims with prejudice.
The State of California also conceded that if I win my Second Amendment claim then I win my Fourth Amendment claim. Newsflash! Even if I were to lose my Second Amendment claim I will still win my Fourth Amendment claim as the law is well settled that one can always assert his Fourth Amendment rights by refusing to consent to a search or seizure of his person or property even if the police have a warrant.
For me to lose my Second Amendment claim the court of appeals will have to conclude that the Second Amendment does not exist outside the doors to our home because unlike every other “carry” lawsuit, I argued that the Second Amendment (and Fourth Amendment) extends to the curtilage of my home.
If I lose my Second Amendment claim then I still have separate 14th Amendment claims including a substantive due process right to “keep and bear” arms which even Justice Stevens said exists in his dissent to McDonald v. City of Chicago.
My 14th Amendment claims also includes a vagueness challenge (facially and as-applied).
The claim I raised on appeal which I think is the most interesting from an academic viewpoint is my claim that the governor has a sufficient enforcement nexus to the laws I challenge. After all, every time the governor declares a state of emergency, including a drought or fire emergency, he is vested by the California legislature with the “full police powers” of the county. It is kind of hard to argue that the governor does not have the required 11th Amendment enforcement nexus when he has the power of every police officer, police chief, and the County district attorney.
Unfortunately, we are going to have to wait until the Mandate issues in Young v. Hawaii to find out and the Mandate in Young v. Hawaii is not going to issue until after SCOTUS decides NYSRPA v. New York City.
Update – February 8, 2019, – The petition for an en banc hearing in Young v. Hawaii was granted. Oral argument will take place in San Francisco the week of March 25, 2019.
It had been four months and 14 days since the petition was filed (September 24, 2018).
Update – January 22, 2019, – SCOTUS granted the cert petition in NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, Inc., et al., v. City of New York, New York, et al – Cert Filed 9-4-2018. It is the first time since McDonald v. City of Chicago that SCOTUS has decided to decide a Second Amendment case on the merits.
Update – January 7, 2019, – Gavin Newsom was sworn in as the governor of California. He is automatically substituted as the Defendant in place of former Governor Brown. His substitution has no effect on the appeal. I’ve asked his attorney to file a notice of substitution with the court of appeals.
Update – January 2, 2019, – The Rogers v. Grewal “carry” (concealed carry) case now has an online docket at SCOTUS (see below). The cert petition was filed on December 20th according to the docket. I have never seen such a long delay between a cert petition being filed and the docket page showing up online.
Update – December 31, 2018, – The year ahead is likely to be a decisive one for the Second Amendment. Regardless of what happens with the Young v. Hawaii en banc petition, there are two handgun carry cert petitions ahead of it (and ahead of Nichols v. Brown). There will likely be two more handgun carry cert petitions filed ahead of Young v. Hawaii if the en banc petition is granted. If I were a betting man then I would bet that we have a decision on the Young v. Hawaii en banc petition within two months. If the petition is denied then the decision becomes binding on my three-judge panel and 2019 will see the return of Loaded (and unloaded) Open Carry for the first time since July of 1967.
Update – December 21, 2018, – The cert petition in THOMAS R. ROGERS and the ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY RIFLE & PISTOL CLUBS, INC. v. GURBIR S. GREWAL, et al Cert Petition was reportedly filed. There is no SCOTUS docket for the case. I will update the link at the bottom of the page when there is. The questions presented to the court were great. Unfortunately, many of the petitions’ citations fail a cite check. The petitioners argue that states can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry even though New Jersey handgun carry permits do not distinguish between concealed or Open Carry. And, of course, this case is not only limited solely to handguns, but it is also limited to handguns which are ordinarily and commonly carried concealed. We have been here before. In 2013, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Alan Gura when he made the same argument in his challenge to the same law. SCOTUS denied his cert petition without a single dissent. I hope that the cert petition is granted but nothing has changed on the court to indicate that there are four justices who will vote to grant the cert petition, let alone five justices who would vote to hold that states can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry. Although I am sure that there are four justices who would vote to uphold New Jersey’s may-issue handgun licensing law.
Update – December 11, 2018, – The Flanagan v. Becerra Reply Brief was filed this evening. This appeal is now fully briefed. We now wait to see whether or not the State of California’s petition for an initial en banc hearing is granted. Given that no judge has requested a response be filed to the petition and none has been granted this decade, a betting man would bet that the petition is denied. If the petition is denied then this appeal (Flanagan v. Becerra) is supposed to go into a waiting line. Every one of the thousands of civil appeals (excluding preliminary injunction appeals) which were filed and briefed before tonight has priority. If the Flanagan v. Becerra appeal is not given special treatment, then the decision in my appeal is binding on the Flanagan v. Becerra appeal. The judgment of the district court as to concealed carry in Flanagan v. Becerra is affirmed. Any Open Carry challenge is either dismissed as moot or dismissed for lack of standing.
Update – December 11, 2018, – Well, instead of granting the unopposed motion to clarify that my appeal is once again under submission for a decision, the panel issued an order vacating submission of my appeal for a decision until the Mandate is issued in Young v. Hawaii. Barring a grant of California’s petition for an initial en banc hearing in Flanagan v. Becerra, I don’t see Flanagan v. Becerra being argued and taken under submission for a decision prior to the issuance of the Mandate in Young v. Hawaii. Still, it would have been nice if the status of my appeal were under submission for a decision given that the circuit rules give my appeal priority over the Flanagan appeal but if we have learned nothing else, we have learned that the courts own rules do not apply to the courts.
Update – December 6, 2018, – There isn’t a whole lot I can do at this point about the State of California’s petition for an initial en banc hearing in Flanagan v. Becerra, other than what I did by filing my Amicus brief in that case. But what I can do is to protect my position in line and keep the NRA from cutting in front. To that end, I filed an unopposed motion to clarify that my appeal is once again under submission for a decision. If granted then the NRA will have to pound sand with its Flanagan v. Becerra case.
Update – November 27, 2018, – There were a few Amicus briefs filed in support of California in the Flanagan v. Becerra Fake Open Carry appeal.
Update – November 20, 2018, – The answering brief by Los Angeles County Sheriff James McDonnell and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra was filed this afternoon in the NRA fake Open Carry lawsuit Michelle Flanagan, et al v. Xavier Becerra (the 9th circuit court of appeals clerk has not updated the case name to “Becerra et al”). Linked below. Barring some miracle, Sheriff McDonnell will no longer be Sheriff by the time this appeal is decided as he appears to have lost his reelection bid. This brief and the answering brief by Attorney General Becerra was not due until December 13th. “Flanagan, et al” has 21 days to file their optional reply brief although I suspect that the NRA/CRPA will take advantage of its free, one-time, 30-day extension of time to file their brief.
Update – November 7, 2018, – There are reportedly one million uncounted ballots in Arizona and so we might not know the result of that election until next week. If the Republican, McSally, wins then she can thank the presence of the Green Party candidate on the ballot just as Democrat Jon Tester can thank the presence of a Libertarian Party candidate on the ballot for his reelection in Montana.
In Florida, a spokesman for Democrat Senator Nelson said he had conceded and would make a statement today. Today, he is calling for a recount even though there is an automatic electronic recount if the margin of victory is less than half of one percent.
There is no chance of a recount in Indiana, Missouri or North Dakota where the Republican challengers handily defeated the Democrat incumbents.
Sadly, the same can be said of Nevada where the incumbent Republican senator was defeated.
The Democrats needed to pick up just 23 seats to win control of the House of Representatives, and they did. There are still seats where the outcome is not clear but it is clear that the Republicans will need to pick up less than 23 seats to regain control of the House in the next election and the Republicans will have more members in the House for the next two years than the Democrats had these past two years.
And yet the mainstream Press is still proclaiming a triumphant victory for the Democrats.
Obama lost 63 seats in the House and lost 6 seats in the Senate in his first midterm election.
Clinton lost 54 seats in the House and lost 9 seats in the Senate in his first midterm election.
George H. W. Bush lost 8 seats in the House and 1 seat in the Senate.
Ronald Reagan lost 26 seats in the House with no change in the Senate.
Jimmy Carter won 1 seat in the House and lost 1 seat in the Senate.
In short, the Democrat “Blue Wave” the press has been touting for months is, at best, a blue whirl.
Update – November 5, 2018, – Just as I predicted, the Rothery v. Blanas cert petition was denied without a dissent. The next candidate is NYSRPA et al., v. City of New York et al, followed by Rogers et al v. Grewal et al and then Gould v. Morgan. The only one of the three which has a chance of being argued on the merits this year is the NYSRPA case if its cert petition is granted. In ordered to be calendared for oral argument, the cert petition must be granted by the end of December. There is always the possibility that SCOTUS will grant a cert petition and kick it back to the lower courts for a do-over without oral argument. SCOTUS did that with the Caetano decision back in 2015.
James Rothery, et al. v. County of Sacramento, et al., – Concealed Carry – 09-16852 – En Banc Petition Denied – Cert Filed 7-26-2018 – Cert denied, November 5, 2018.
Update – November 1, 2018, – The likely confirmation of two more judges to the 9th circuit court of appeals will raise the number of votes required to grant an en banc petition, which in turn improves the chances of the Young v. Hawaii en banc petition being denied. There is no possibility of filling the remaining four vacancies before the voting period for the en banc petition in Young v. Hawaii ends. The confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court increases the probability of a cert petition being granted in a 2A case. The best cert petition so far this term is the NYSRPA v. City of New York, et al (linked below). All we can do at this point is wait and see.
Update – October 17, 2018, – The Rothery v. Blanas (link above) cert petition has been scheduled for the SCOTUS conference of November 2nd.
Update – October 10, 2018, – The paper copy of my Amicus brief in Flanagan v. Harris was stamped received on October 9th but I was sent a notice of deficiency saying that I had failed to state that all parties had consented to the filing of my brief and so I have to file a motion within 14 days to file my Amicus brief. I have, of course, included the Rule 29 statement in the first paragraph of my Amicus Brief and again in the first sentence of the first paragraph of my Amicus brief argument that all parties had consented to my filing my Amicus brief (which means a motion is not necessary). I called the clerk’s office and was told that the docket will be corrected to show that my Amicus brief is filed on time. I was also told that the court policy has changed in regards to filing pro se paper copies of briefs (in this case it would be 7 paper copies). The new policy is that pro se filers no longer have to file paper copies of their briefs. We shall see. Also, I doubly hope that is true if this appeal, or my appeal, goes before an en banc panel. You don’t want to know how expensive it will be for me to print the required number of copies of my briefs and excerpts of records for the en banc panel. As my Amicus brief in Flanagan v. Becerra is only 13 pages in length, the expense is relatively small in comparison to what the printing and postage costs would be for the en banc paper copies in my appeal. EDIT UPDATE: The Clerk’s Office worked more quickly than I anticipated. The incorrect docket entry regarding my having to file a motion for my Amicus brief to be filed has been deleted. There is a new docket entry (25) stating that my Amicus brief has been filed and electronically served.
Update – October 5, 2018, – The US Senate voted to have a final vote on the Judge Kavanaugh confirmation hearing tomorrow, Saturday, October 5th. I sent the Clerk of the Court a paper copy of my Amicus brief in Flanagan v. Harris today as well (don’t ask). Hopefully, on Monday we will have a newly minted Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh and my Amicus brief filed in Flanagan v. Harris.
Update – September 27, 2018, – Judge Kavanaugh was voted out of committee today on a party-line vote, 11-10. But after voting to advance his nomination in committee, Republican Senator Flake, who is retiring, said he could not vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh without further investigation by the FBI. At last report, this pushes the confirmation vote by the full Senate off for another week.
Update – September 27, 2018, – I can’t decide whether Day 5 of the Judge Kavanaugh confirmation hearings was a Roman farce or a Greek tragedy. It was certainly a sign that we are teetering on the edge of civil war. As of this writing, the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation vote is scheduled for tomorrow, Friday, September 28, beginning at 9:30 AM (ET). There is an old saying that a Conservative is a Liberal who has never been mugged. Judge Kavanaugh’s judicial philosophy is considered to be “conservative” by today’s standards but I believe that he is a liberal deep-down. Or at least he was. The Democrat thugs in the US Senate and the “mainstream” left-wing press have thoroughly raked him over the coals, keelhauled him, and kicked his teeth in.
I hope that he is confirmed.
I hope as well that he remembers how he has been treated when he has to decide close questions of law. Or even not so close questions of law. Government is evil. The acolytes of government don’t want him to be on the Supreme Court. I hope he remembers that for the rest of his life.
John Cassidy, Petitioner v. Massachusetts 18-191 (Felony convictions for in-home possession of firearms legal in Texas but not Massachusetts). – Cert denied Oct 1, 2018.
Cash Jerome Ferguson-Cassidy, v. City of Los Angeles, California, et al (police shooting) – Cert denied Oct 1, 2018.
Donte Timothy Bacon v United States (obliterated serial number on a handgun) – Cert denied, November 5, 2018.
Christos Koutentis v. New York City Police Department, Licensing Division (handgun license revocation) – Cert denied on November 13, 2018.
Eduardo Salgado v. California (concealed carry) – Cert denied on December 3, 2018.
Kevin Wayne Vanover and Meredith Ann Yates v United States (drugs and guns) – Cert denied on December 3, 2018.
GARY DRESSLER, v. BRADFORD RICE, ET AL (Open Carry/Police Immunity) – Cert denied January 7, 2019.
United States v. Michael Albert Focia – Convicted for dealing in firearms without a federal firearms license, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A), and selling firearms to unlicensed residents of states other than his own without having a license to do so, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(5). Cert denied January 7, 2019.
Barry Michaels v. Matthew G. Whitaker, Acting Attorney General, et al. – Cert Filed June 27, 2018 (challenge to Federal ban on felon in possession of firearms – as applied challenge). – Cert denied January 14, 2019.
Lyanne Lemeunier-Fitzgerald, Petitioner v. Maine – Fourth Amendment (refusal to consent) – BIO Requested on November, 16, 2018. Due December 17, 2018. – Cert denied January 14, 2019.
William Benjamin Brown v Andrew Mansukhani, Warden (prisoner pro se, handwritten petition, Fourth Amendment and more) – Cert filed on June 20, 2018. – Cert denied January 22, 2019.
Eduardo Gomez v. Illinois – (concealed carry in an automobile, 4th Amendment) – Cert filed on December 20, 2018. – Cert denied on February 19, 2019.
Curtis John Mulhern, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania – (2nd Amendment) – Cert filed July 29, 2018. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/22/2019. – Cert denied on February 25, 2019.
Benjie Earl Wright v United States – (Fourth Amendment, concealed carry) – Cert Filed November 27, 2018. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/22/2019. (lots of relists with this one). – Cert denied on February 25, 2019.
Suzan Evans, Individually and as Wife and Next of Kin of Scott Evans, Deceased, Petitioner v. United States – (2nd and 4th Amendment). – Cert filed September 7, 2018. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/22/2019. – Cert denied on February 25, 2019.
Los Angeles County, California, et al., Petitioners v. Angel Mendez, et al. – Fourth Amendment (proximate cause, failure to obtain a warrant, Rule 52(a) procedural question) – Cert filed 11/30/2018. Response due January 25, 2019. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/1/2019. – Cert denied on March 4, 2019.
Luis A. Nieves, et al., v. Russell P. Bartlett – Cert Granted June 28, 2018. Oral argument, November 26, 2018 (Probable cause, retaliatory arrests, and the First Amendment).
NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, Inc., et al., v. City of New York, New York, et al – Cert Filed 9-4-2018 – (transportation of handguns out of NYC with only a premises permit). – Cert Granted January 22, 2019. Feb 25, 2019, Joint motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits is granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners’ brief on the merits is extended to and including May 7, 2019. The time to file respondents’ brief on the merits is extended to and including August 5, 2019.
Evangelisto Ramos, Petitioner v. Louisiana – Cert Filed 9/11/2018 – Whether the Fourteenth Amendment fully incorporates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a unanimous verdict? – Cert Granted March 18, 2019.
Kansas v. Glover – Cert Filed 10/29/2018 – The question presented is whether, for purposes of an investigative stop under the Fourth Amendment, it is reasonable for an officer to suspect that the registered owner of a vehicle is the one driving the vehicle absent any information to the contrary. – Cert Granted April 1, 2019.
Brian Anderson v. Colorado – Cert filed on December 13, 2019. Colorado uses vacated convictions to enhance sentences, which SCOTUS has said is unconstitutional in 2017. If this prisoner pro se petition is granted and he prevails then the 2017 decision will become retroactive. Response Requested on February 19, 2019. (Due April 24, 2019).
ROGERS et al v. GREWAL et al – New Jersey Handgun Carry Appeal 18-2366 – Cert filed on December 20, 2018. (Plaintiffs did not file an en banc petition – may issue handgun carry permits). Response due February 1, 2019. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/22/2019. Response Requested. (Due April 19, 2019).
John Copeland, et al., v. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., et al. Cert filed on January 14, 2019, The question presented is: Whether a plaintiff need show that a law is vague in all of its applications to succeed in a facial vagueness challenge (to a NY knife ban). Feb 20 2019 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/15/2019. Feb 27 2019 Response Requested. (Due May 13, 2019).
Gould v. Morgan, No. 17-2202 (1st Cir. Nov. 2, 2018) – Massachusettes Handgun Carry Appeal – No en banc petition was filed. Cert petition filed on April 1, 2019 – (may issue handgun carry permits). Response due May 6, 2019.
Shane Cox v. United States – (short barrel rifle and silencers). Cert Filed on January 16, 2019. Response due May 1, 2019.
Jeremy Kettler v. United States – (NFA challenge. Kettler and Cox both relied on a Kansas state law and lost. They have filed separate cert petitions). Cert filed on January 18, 2019. Response due on May 6, 2019.
Alexis Valdes Gonzalez – Cert Filed on January 18, 2019. This is a fascinating due process case. The question presented is, “Whether the Due Process Clause permits the Eleventh Circuit to preclusive effect in a criminal case to a prior panel decision that was: based on a mandatory form allowing only bare legal argument; issued under a strict 30-day deadline; and immune from any petition for rehearing or a writ of certiorari.” Response Requested on February 19, 2019. (Due May 6, 2019).
Colton W. Sievers, Petitioner v. Nebraska – Cert Filed on March 7, 2019. This is a Fourth Amendment case. Unfortunately, the lead attorney for the petitioner is Orin Kerr who defended a City of Los Angeles ordinance which made it a crime to assert one’s Fourth Amendment right to refuse consent. Although this is an important case, Mr. Kerr should not be allowed anywhere near it. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/26/2019. Response Requested. (Due May 20, 2019).
Links open in new tab.
This is the official website of the only lawsuit ever filed which seeks to overturn California’s ban on openly carrying loaded and unloaded firearms in public for the purpose of self-defense.
Copyright Charles Nichols - All rights reserved. The background image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 922
 § 922
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.