Help Charles Nichols Fight for 2A

Help Charles Nichols and his Lawsuit to Overturn California’s Bans on Openly Carrying Loaded and Unloaded Firearms in Public

On September 12, 2022, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court's final judgment in favor of the State of California and remanded my case back to the district court for proceedings consistent with NYSRPA v. Bruen.

The district court adopted the State's position that it did not have to comply with the Court of Appeals' order. The district court has delayed a final judgment in my lawsuit multiple times. The local rules of the Central District of California require the district court to decide the State's motion for summary judgment within 120 days. If the district court had complied with the rules, a decision would have been made by February 3, 2025.

No decision was made by the district court and so, pursuant to the local rules of the Central District of California, both sides signed and filed a joint request for a decision, and sent a copy to the chief judge for the district. By March 12, 2025, the district court judge was required to either issue her decision or give a specific date on which her decision would be issued.

It is rare for the parties in a lawsuit to have to issue a joint request for a decision; however, we are all aware that Second Amendment lawsuits are often viewed with disfavor by the Federal judiciary.

Hopefully, we will have a favorable judgment by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Baird v. Bonta final judgment appeal before then. The judgment in the Baird v. Bonta handgun Open Carry lawsuit will be immediately binding on the district court in my case.

My lawsuit is not limited to handguns. My lawsuit seeks to enjoin California's bans on openly carrying loaded and unloaded rifles, shotguns, and handguns throughout the State of California.

The magistrate judge, without anyone asking, stayed my case pending the decision in Baird v. Bonta. I objected to the stay, which District Court Judge Sykes interpreted as a motion to review the stay. I filed a brief in opposition to the stay; however, the state was supposed to file a document indicating whether it supported a review of the stay by the district court judge. Instead, the State filed a brief in support of the stay.

On July 15, 2025, the district court judge canceled the hearing that had been scheduled for July 18th in an order saying that she will decide the "motion" on the briefs.

Please support me in my fight to restore the Second Amendment to California by donating here.