looks like someone on twitter doesn't like me

[Tvandermyde]

Rhonda Ezell was nice enough to make a post on twitter er X about my petition campaign for running for the NRA board again and it gained the attention of this gadfly

 

I find it funny that someone from Cali that wasn't here or participating knows how to get laws passed. . . 

 

[Bubbacs]

I have guns for sale.  Why you may ask?  Cause the last thing I want carved into my headstone is:  Here lies a Depraved, Degernate Moronic Gun Owner

[Euler]

Charles Nichols is/was the president of California Right to Carry, an organization that may be only him, incorporated to sue California for its firearm laws, particularly its open carry ban.

[mauserme]

in fairness, it should be noted that the NRA did lobby against an Illinois concealed carry bill in the days before McDonald v Chicago incorporated the Second Amendment.  There is an old, archived topic titled NRA-ILA Lobbied Against IL License to Carry Bill outlining the events.

 

It can be debated whether or not that bill made sense given the politics of the time, but it would be inaccurate to say it hasn't happened.

 

 

[Tvandermyde]

Oh no you are absolutely right on that one Mauser. I made it clear at the time NRA, as there representative, would kill any bill that attempted to allow counties to "opt" in to a local carry permit. 

 

I was pretty clear in my terms, which can not be reprinted here

[Tango7]

On 6/30/2025 at 9:12 PM, Tvandermyde said:

Oh no you are absolutely right on that one Mauser. I made it clear at the time NRA, as there representative, would kill any bill that attempted to allow counties to "opt" in to a local carry permit. 

 

I was pretty clear in my terms, which can not be reprinted here

To quote the motto of the fight in Georgia "one state, one law".

[Smallbore]

It is easy and often done to criticize lack of support for a long past bad bill with a misleading title whose details are long forgotten. 

[RANDY]

Charles has been banned from several guns forums over the years including this one.

[mauserme]

On 7/1/2025 at 1:19 PM, RANDY said:

... including this one.

 

I don't think so.

 

 

[RANDY]

On 7/1/2025 at 2:32 PM, mauserme said:

 

I don't think so.

 

 

It looks like you are correct.  He just hasn't been here since 2020

[Charles Nichols]

I wasn't banned, I just quit posting here and the other forums because there is no point. They are invested with concealed carriers attacking Open Carry.

[mab22]

On 7/2/2025 at 9:28 AM, Charles Nichols said:

I wasn't banned, I just quit posting here and the other forums because there is no point. They are invested with concealed carriers attacking Open Carry.

I think some of the founders here were in support of both open and concealed carry, but the overloads in congress at the time nixed the open carry, I could be wrong. 
I have my own reasons for liking open carry as opposed to concealed, I thought it was a good discussion myself.

 

I like the saying, "As the facts change, I change my mind". 

 

 

 

[mauserme]

On 7/2/2025 at 1:17 PM, mab22 said:

I think some of the founders here were in support of both open and concealed carry, but the overloads in congress at the time nixed the open carry, I could be wrong. 
I have my own reasons for liking open carry as opposed to concealed, I thought it was a good discussion myself.

 

I like the saying, "As the facts change, I change my mind". 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not one of the founders, but I can tell you we've always made it clear that we are  IllinoisCarry, not just IllinoisConcealedCarry.  Meaning, we support right to carry in all it's forms.  But that was never on the table in the Illinois legislature, that I recall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mab22]

On 7/2/2025 at 2:52 PM, mauserme said:

 

 

I'm not one of the founders, but I can tell you we've always made it clear that we are  IllinoisCarry, not just IllinoisConcealedCarry.  Meaning, we support right to carry in all it's forms.  But that was never on the table in the Illinois legislature, that I recall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I got it mostly or slightly correct. 😉 

[Charles Nichols]

On 7/2/2025 at 12:52 PM, mauserme said:

 

 

I'm not one of the founders, but I can tell you we've always made it clear that we are  IllinoisCarry, not just IllinoisConcealedCarry.  Meaning, we support right to carry in all it's forms.  But that was never on the table in the Illinois legislature, that I recall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Take a look at the posts above.  You might support Open Carry, but this forum, like every forum, has concealed carriers who attack Open Carry and attack the few of us, like me and Mark Baird (the only two people to ever file a lawsuit against California's Open Carry bans), who have devoted years of our lives fighting for Open Carry.  Ironically, these creatures seem to think that we give two cents what they think.  But such is the nature of concealed carriers who invariably give the same two reasons why they oppose Open Carry: 1) They are afraid Open Carry will make them a target (cowardice) and, 2) concealed carry gives them a secret advantage (immorality).

[mauserme]

I think we have to respect the fact that not everyone will agree with open carry.  But, we can also expect that disagreement to be voiced with respect.  A post that didn't meet that expectation has been removed.

 

 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

[fenris]

On 7/2/2025 at 3:31 PM, Charles Nichols said:

Take a look at the posts above.  You might support Open Carry, but this forum, like every forum, has concealed carriers who attack Open Carry and attack the few of us, like me and Mark Baird (the only two people to ever file a lawsuit against California's Open Carry bans), who have devoted years of our lives fighting for Open Carry.  Ironically, these creatures seem to think that we give two cents what they think.  But such is the nature of concealed carriers who invariably give the same two reasons why they oppose Open Carry: 1) They are afraid Open Carry will make them a target (cowardice) and, 2) concealed carry gives them a secret advantage (immorality).

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. 

[Charles Nichols]

On 7/2/2025 at 5:43 PM, fenris said:

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. 

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.

[Charles Nichols]

On 6/30/2025 at 6:09 PM, Euler said:

Charles Nichols is/was the president of California Right to Carry, an organization that may be only him, incorporated to sue California for its firearm laws, particularly its open carry ban.

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.

[Smallbore]

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. 

[modeler1945]

On 7/2/2025 at 3:31 PM, Charles Nichols said:

Take a look at the posts above.  You might support Open Carry, but this forum, like every forum, has concealed carriers who attack Open Carry and attack the few of us, like me and Mark Baird (the only two people to ever file a lawsuit against California's Open Carry bans), who have devoted years of our lives fighting for Open Carry.  Ironically, these creatures seem to think that we give two cents what they think.  But such is the nature of concealed carriers who invariably give the same two reasons why they oppose Open Carry: 1) They are afraid Open Carry will make them a target (cowardice) and, 2) concealed carry gives them a secret advantage (immorality).

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.

[Black Flag]

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/

 

 

 

 

[SiliconSorcerer]

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. 

 

[davel501]

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.

[Yeti]

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.

[Charles Nichols]

On 7/3/2025 at 5:38 AM, Smallbore said:

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. 

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.   

[mab22]

On 7/3/2025 at 5:40 PM, Yeti said:

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.

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

[Charles Nichols]

On 7/3/2025 at 6:16 AM, modeler1945 said:

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.

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.

 

[SiliconSorcerer]

I've donated to you a couple times.

CA needs the dog that just doesn't let go, I respect that.