All Activity

Thank you. I have been called many things in my life; "quitter" was never one of them. 🤠 That said, neither I nor Mark Baird is getting any younger. Time is not on our side. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals kept Ed Peruta's concealed carry appeal tied up for five years and eight months before he received a final judgment he could take to the Supreme Court. They kept George Young Jr's handgun Open Carry appeal tied up for eight years and four months before he received a final judgment he could take to the Supreme Court. NYSRPA v. Bruen got me a reversal of judgment in favor of the State of California and a remand after eight years and three months in the Court of Appeals. Not only have I been in court for thirteen years and seven months without receiving a final judgment from the Court of Appeals that I can take to the Supreme Court, I have a hearing on the 18th of this month in which I have to explain to the district court judge why she doesn't have jurisdiction to stay my case until there is a final judgment in the Baird v. Bonta appeal. She knows she does not have jurisdiction to stay my lawsuit. The State of California knows she does not have jurisdiction to stay my lawsuit. I had to go to the Chief Judge for the Central District of California to force the district court judge to set a decision date for the State's motion for summary judgment, which was May 30th (a decision she did not issue). Notwithstanding that, had she complied with the order of the Court of Appeals, she would have issued a final judgment by early 2023, at the latest. The only way I will be able to obtain a final judgment in the district court is to first request that the Chief Judge reassign my case, and then file a writ of mandamus and prohibition with the Court of Appeals when the Chief Judge for the district refuses my request for a reassignment. And once I extricate myself from the district court, I will still have to brief and argue my appeal. After that, it will likely be years before the Court of Appeals issues a final, appealable judgment that can then be taken to the Supreme Court. I spent over $3k on a petition before final judgment to SCOTUS, which was denied. That was before Justice Thomas let us all know that the Supreme Court is not going to grant interlocutory appeals in Second Amendment cases. Here is a short video clip of Mark Baird from ten months ago. He isn't much older than me. The anti-gun judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals know that if they delay our cases long enough, they will become moot.

I've donated to you a couple times. CA needs the dog that just doesn't let go, I respect that.

It is not my purpose in life to seek converts or save the souls of cowardly, depraved degenerates. Nor could I if I wanted to, which I don't. People either learn the difference between right and wrong when they are children, or they don't. Six months before I filed my California Open Carry lawsuit, I announced my intention to file the lawsuit on the condition that one hundred people donate $50 each. I am not a religious man, but that was my homage to the story of Lot. Just as Lot was unable to find ten decent men in Sodom, I did not think I would find one hundred decent men in California. Unfortunately, I did find them. And having found them, I was honor-bound to go through with my lawsuit. Fortunately, I don't have to pay $650 per hour for a lawyer like Mark Baird, who filed a separate Open Carry lawsuit. And now that I no longer have to file two paper copies of my filings at the courthouse and serve the Defendants' seven lawyers with paper copies by mail (printing and postage are very expensive), a lack of money is no longer an obstacle. When Mark Baird made a public plea for funds because he was down to $3k in funds, I turned to one of my long-time, wealthier supporters who funded his appeal. In short, I didn't ask for your support. I don't need it, and even if I did, I wouldn't want it.

Yet somehow we ended up with Democrats trying to do just that, and they want people disarmed. Go figure.

I did not say that murder with Open Carry was historically protected. If one had simply walked up to another person at the time, drawn an openly carried weapon, and killed someone, then it was murder, and he would be hanged. Four or five hundred years earlier in England, that was not the case. Murder was punished with excommunication, confiscation of lands, and exile. From 1603 to 1825 the law in England was that if one used a concealed weapon, either carried on the person or secreted nearby, and used that concealed weapon to kill another person without first displaying (presenting) the weapon to one's opponent in order to give him the opportunity to either decline what is known as "mutual combat" or to similarly arm himself then the concealed carrier was executed. There was no possibility of a pardon or lesser punishment. As handguns were not concealable in 1603, the law initially applied to bladed weapons. However, when firearms became easily concealable, the law was expanded to include them. Given that the American colonies were English colonies and American colonists strove to emulate what they perceived as the ideal of being perfect Englishmen, they adopted the laws and traditions of England. There was an early 19th-century state high court decision that relaxed the rule somewhat. The Court held that if one were not the initial aggressor and used a concealed weapon to save his life, then he could escape execution. If two people were fighting with weapons that were openly carried, then the tradition was to give the victor what was called "the benefit of clergy" for a first offense. Meaning he would not be executed. There was an English Court that held that if the combatants were fighting with cudgels (a commonly carried wooden club), which was viewed then as we view boxing today, and one of the combatants died then it was unfortunate, but not a crime because in the view of the court, fighting with cudgels built character. To give an example of how much things have changed over time, in California, which adopted English common law when it became a state in 1850, offenses were charged as violating the common law because there was no codified penal code. Today, an initial aggressor has the duty to retreat, but if he is unable to retreat or surrender, then he has the "right" to use deadly force if he has a reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury or death. The Founding Fathers were men of honor; they fought duels. If one were able to travel back in time and tell them that one carried a concealed weapon because it gives one a secret (tactical) advantage over their opponent, they would look at that person with disgust. Which is why the NRA lawyer, Paul Clement, said in the oral argument to NYSRPA v. Bruen that Open Carry can be banned today in favor of concealed carry because people today are on a "different wavelength." Looking around at the world today, I would agree that most people today are on that different wavelength of cowardice and immorality. But that doesn't change the history and tradition of the Second Amendment.

Given that our Founding Fathers didn't restrict private parties from owning the strongest arms of the day (cannons, battleships, etc.) or any other weaker implements that were/could be used as arms, I truly don't believe they cared in what manner We the People chose to bear those arms as long as we maintained the right to defend ourselves and the right to defend The People from the potential risk of an overbearing government. They didn't want anyone to repeat their sacrifice & suffering or allow future overlords in the style of English rulers to degrade the freedoms in this country. They tried to guarantee we had all means possible to do what was needed. Our Founding Fathers were very well studied and connected and likely knew of the varied weapons technology that existed at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted, be they small concealable firearms or repeating firearms or "pocketable" French balisong folding knives designed specifically for fighting (and were in existence a century prior to the Bill of Rights) or the concealable tomahawks used in the Revolutionary War or even automatic "switchblades" dating back decades prior to the Founding. The Founding Fathers had just closely witnessed what edged weapons large and small could do in battle and saw the damage indiscrete cannon fire could inflict on enemies (along with collateral damage on innocents) yet added no restrictions in the founding documents related to those arms. They didn't restrict anyone from owning a battleship (with cannons obvious or concealed below deck) that could take over a harbor or ravage a city in the 2A. They also knew arms were advancing/being refined and put in no future restrictions on weapons technology (as it could void the core principle of protection against a potentially superior government). I believe they'd be ashamed that groups today were trying to restrict one type of carry vs. another or one particular type of arms vs. another in today's privileged world after they sacrificed so much for freedom and to guarantee future freedom. George Washington carried a concealed arm (a folding knife). That's good enough for me to know they didn't care about open vs. concealed carry.

Thank you to Trump and all who voted for the American people. We appreciate you!

If this administration isn't going to try to put an under-21 ban (purchase or carry) before the Supreme Court (e.g., the apparent decline of ATF v Reese), then it's going to have to be someone else. "Someone else" is going to have to come from a circuit that has upheld a ban. Of the cases we're tracking in this forum, the choices are:This case (or McCoy) from the 4th Circuit, which upheld a purchase banNRA v Glass from the 11th Circuit, which upheld a purchase banParis v SAF (previously known as Paris v Lara) from the 3rd Circuit, which overturned a carry ban (PA is petitioning for cert, rather than the feds, but I still expect cert to be denied)Meyer v Raoul, which is still in district court, regarding a carry ban from the 7th Circuit, but does anyone expect the 7th Circuit not to uphold the ban? There could be other cases not tracked here, but unless NRA v Glass wins the prize (gets cert), the next most likely candidate(s) is McCoy/Brown.

Euler, can you put it in terms we all understand? :") Where we at here? JQ

I thought we all learned our lesson by now,especially after the mess trump made with bumpstocks. We don't negotiate on rights. Any gun law that says what or how you can carry is an infringement.

My only peeve is when they use we allow concealed carry as an excuse to not allow open carry, that's a compromise we should NOT accept.

Concealed Carry: Because not everyone gets it. Because not everyone shows or understands discretion. Because there are other, fundamental battles to win. Yes, gun rights are human rights. But if I'm in the restaurant, I hope these guys ordered "to-go." https://www.reuters.com/article/world/uk/chipotle-bans-firearms-at-restaurants-after-texas-demonstration-idUSBREA4K025/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/chipotle-guns-open-carry-texas/

Except that bringing people to your cause requires you to care what they think. Like it or not, you have to be a salesman to win people over. Being prickly to those who are mostly likely to be persuaded over to your side isn't a winning strategy. Save that for the anti-gun politicians. You can't afford to alienate gun owners. I had no idea who you were until this thread, and based on these first few posts and interactions I've come across, you don't strike me as the winning champion I want to hitch my horse to in order to achieve open carry.

I am no historian or lawyer. I see "shall not be infringed" protecting concealed and open. Little pocket pistols have a long history. Claiming a murder with open carry was historical protect as compared to concealed is hard to believe.

For reference, September 16 is the deadline to petition the US Supreme Court for certiorari.

You said four things in one sentence, all but the first are a lie. From September of 2011 to September of 2016, when it expired because I did not renew it, I was the President of a California nonprofit association, not a corporation. My California nonprofit association was never a party to my lawsuit if for no other reason than an association, unlike a corporation, is not a "person" that can be a party to a lawsuit. At its peak, it had over 400 associates. Small in number compared to the so-called gun-rights groups that made little effort to hide their opposition to Open Carry, but evil has always greatly outnumbered the good.

Only open carry is protected by the Second Amendment. In the history of the Anglo-American right to keep and bear arms leading up to 1791, and throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, no court had ever held that the Second Amendment protects a right to concealed carry. Throughout the history of the English colonies in America, and after independence, well into the 19th century, the use of a concealed weapon (in both England and the United States) to kill one's opponent was punished by death, without the possibility of pardon or lesser punishment, let alone acquittal which was often the case when the opponents fought fairly with openly carried weapons. The NRA, in its briefs filed in NYSRPA v. Bruen, and all of the Amicus briefs could not cite a single case that held concealed carry is a right protected by the Second Amendment, or that a prohibition on Open Carry made concealed carry a right protected by the Second Amendment. The principal cases cited in Heller and Bruen said that concealed carry is evil. I have never hidden my aversion to concealed carry or my contempt for those who claim the Second Amendment is a right to what you call a "strategic advantage," which is what Heller called a "secret advantage and unmanly assassination." It has always been common for people to rationalize immoral acts to the ignorant; what has changed today is that people either simply don't care about morality and/or parade depravity as a virtue. That is one parade you will never see me marching in.

There's no reason for you to hold her FOID. If the state wants it, it'll ask. Similarly, for the Disposition Record, if the state wants it, it'll ask. There's no need for you to notarize it. The notary stamp is for the cops. It could also be a good idea to talk to a lawyer. You definitely don't want to rely on the cops to tell you the law.

Thank you @Euler - that is helpful. The stuff I have read about Karinas law that went into affect recently scared me so I got everything out of the house yesterday and stored it at a local gun store. She was served with the emergency order of protection today and we were surprised that they did not ask for her FOID or about any firearms in the house. The portal says her FOID is suspended, as opposed to being revoked - maybe there is a distinction there that makes a difference? From https://isp.illinois.gov/Foid/FoidRevoked : If your FOID card is suspended, you are still required to submit a Firearm Disposition Record (FDR) which can be found here, including surrendering your FOID card to law enforcement or a valid FOID cardholder. So if she gives me her FOID to hold and submits the disposition form we are good? There is a place on the form for "Law Enforcement Official’s Signature OR Notary Stamp, Signature and Date" but no related instructions - do we need to get it notarized? I just want to make sure we are set up so she can get her FOID/CCL back when this nonsense is over.

My recollection may be off and I'm not going to waste time pulling up old threads, but I'm fairly sure most of the push-back against you was because you attacked concealed carry and argued that only open carry was covered by the 2A and that concealed carry should be limited in lieu of open carry. Your disdain for concealed carry shows when you call not wanting to be a target 'cowardice' instead of prudence or someone's choice and continuing on to call it immoral to have a strategic advantage if the worst ever happens and you or your family's lives are in danger. Almost everyone here has supported people having the choice between the two but, if due to this being Illinois, feel it is better having concealed only as compared to nothing.

Got my tickets today. Looking forward to it. VooDoo

It removes one layer of infringement. Without removing them a piece at a time, we would never remove any of them (short of a ruling from SCOTUS, perhaps).

I don't see the state doing that - they lost bigly. They have to muddy up McGlynn's decision, and bring it all into question by introducing new avenues of interest balancing. During oral arguments their tactic (including Easterbrook) will be to paint more shade on Bruen as a lousy decision. I bet we get something like Friedman is better law, because the "text and history" test in Bruen is to difficult to understand. I also do not think it would be a good idea for our side to seek a pass on oral arguments. The SCOTUS wants this case to have a big fat extensive record. Waiving oral arguments and skipping a chance to add to the record, could cost us cert. So our lawyers and experts will need to be ready for anything.

Judicial notice is a powerful thing. Being able to say Congress has made clear the state has it wrong is a very good thing.

I'm thankful Todd V is here leading the fight against IL's draconian gun ban.