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

My petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment was denied on January 5, 2024. Jurisdiction has now returned to the district court for a final judgment.

Both sides will file a motion for final judgment with the district court on or before July 24, 2024. After the district court issues its final judgment, my lawsuit will be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals at which point I can file another petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment. Should it be denied then we will have to wait for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to issue its decision. Once the Court of Appeals issues its decision then my lawsuit will once again be in the hands of the United States Supreme Court.

Should I prevail in the Court of Appeals then it will be up to the State of California to decide whether or not to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. Should I lose in the Court of Appeals then I will be the one filing the petition with SCOTUS. Either way, the decision of the Supreme Court will be final.

My lawsuit challenges California's bans on openly carrying loaded and unloaded rifles, shotguns, and handguns for the purpose of self-defense outside of the home as well as California's prohibitions on issuing licenses to openly carry handguns to persons who reside in counties with a population of 200,000 or more people as well as all of the ancillary license requirements as they apply to people who are not prohibited from possessing firearms under Federal and state law.

My lawsuit also challenges the California Gun-Free School Zone Act prohibition on possessing, transporting, and carrying firearms within 1,000 feet of every K-12 public and private school (but not on school grounds).

My lawsuit does not challenge any state or Federal restrictions on the possession or carrying of firearms in government buildings.

There is a different, limited, handgun Open Carry lawsuit now pending before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Baird v. Bonta) that is limited to handguns and does not seek to openly carry a handgun within 1,000 feet of any K-12 public or private school or anywhere else it is legal to openly carry an unloaded, antique handgun. The Baird v. Bonta appeal will be fully briefed before the Court of Appeals by the end of this Spring or early Summer. Under the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals General Orders, the appeal will be heard before Judges Lee, VanDyke, and N. Randy Smith unless they decline to take it in which case the Baird v. Bonta appeal will be heard by a different three-judge panel.

=========================================================================

I’m Charles Nichols. I am now in my twelfth year of litigation against the State of California in which I challenge its unconstitutional bans on openly carrying loaded and unloaded firearms in public. 

This is your chance to help defend the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in California and throughout the 9th circuit. 

If my lawsuit must go to the US Supreme Court then the Supreme Court decision would apply nationwide. 

I have been fighting in court California’s bans on carrying firearms in public since 2011. It has been a very long and very expensive fight. 

If you would like to support me and my fight against the State of California to strike down its unconstitutional bans on carrying loaded and unloaded firearms then please do so by donating here.

In 1967 California made it a crime to carry a loaded firearm outside of one’s home except while hunting or at shooting ranges. Under California law, we can “have” but not carry a loaded firearm on our private property or place of business and we can only carry a loaded firearm in public for the brief interval of time when we are in grave, immediate danger. Where that firearm is supposed to magically appear from, the State of California defendants (Governor and Attorney General) won't say.

The moment we step one inch outside the door to our home into even the curtilage of our home while carrying a loaded firearm then we are breaking the law.

If you live within 1,000 feet of a K-12 public or private school and you step off your property with a handgun that isn’t unloaded and in a fully enclosed locked container then you are breaking a law for which a conviction results in your losing your right to possess any firearm for ten years.

 Why My Lawsuit is So Very Important

The reason my lawsuit is so important is because there will not be another one after I am gone. 

As difficult as it is to believe, I am the first and only person to challenge the Constitutionality of California’s 1967 ban on openly carrying loaded handguns, rifles, and shotguns outside of our homes.

Likewise, I am the first and only person to challenge California’s bans on openly carrying unloaded handguns, rifles, and shotguns outside the home. The Unloaded Open Carry bans went into effect on January 1, 2012 (handguns) and 2013 (long guns).

This is the last chance we will have to vindicate the right to keep and bear arms in public.

Although I am not an attorney, I did study law in college but decided to become an engineer instead. I remember one of my law professors telling us that the only thing better than having 100 years of court cases in your favor is having a recent court decision reaffirming those 100 years of prior precedents.

I cannot promise you anything other than with your help I can continue the fight and take my case all the way to the US Supreme Court if need be. Your reward will be the same as mine, a vindication of our Second Amendment right.

Here we are more than fifty years later and I am the first and only person who has filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn that 1967 Open Carry ban. I filed my lawsuit in Federal court in 2011. After California banned the Open Carry of unloaded handguns in 2012 and banned the Open Carry of unloaded long guns in 2013. I amended my lawsuit to challenge those bans as well. I am also the first and only person to challenge those bans.

I also challenge California’s prohibition on issuing licenses to openly carry loaded handguns in counties with a population of 200,000 or more people and limiting the validity of those licenses to the county of issuance and, you guessed it, I am the first and only person to challenge that ban as well. I, like most people in California, live in a county with 200,000 or more people.

My claim is that the government cannot require a permission slip to openly carry any firearm, and I asked the Court to strike down California's licensing laws in their entirety. I also claimed that if for some reason the Court does not strike down the licensing laws in their entirety then the State of California cannot restrict Open Carry licenses to counties with a population of fewer than 200,000 people and restrict the licenses to only the county in which they were issued. I also challenge all of the ancillary licensing statutes, such as fees and training.

In short, my challenge against the licensing law is that the government cannot require a license to exercise a fundamental, enumerated right but once the government provides for such a license, the government cannot limit those licenses to people who reside in a county of fewer than 200,000 people, nor can the government decide what constitutes "good cause" or "good moral character" for being issued a license. If someone is not prohibited from possessing a firearm then that someone must be issued an Open Carry license and the state may not charge a fee for the license or require training or put any restrictions on the license beyond it being invalid in sensitive places like schools and government buildings.

In 2014, District Court Judge Samuel James Otero held that firearms are no different than illegal drugs, specifically crystal meth, and he held that people who possess firearms are no different than dealers in crystal meth. He then issued a final judgment in favor of the State of California and against me.

I filed a timely appeal.

The briefs in my appeal have been filed on both sides.  Oral argument took place in my appeal on February 15, 2018. Because a related case out of Hawaii was heard three days before mine, we had to wait for a decision in that case before there is a decision in mine. After the 9th circuit court of appeals voted to rehear the Young v. Hawaii appeal before an en banc panel of 11 judges, the Court stayed Young v. Hawaii pending a decision by the US Supreme Court in NYSRPA v. NYC. That case was heard on December 2nd, 2019.

NYSRPA v. NYC was dismissed as moot. The stay in Young v. Hawaii was lifted, and the appeal was heard before an eleven-judge en banc panel on September 24, 2020. Once there was a final decision in Young v. Hawaii in the 9th circuit (the Mandate issued on April 15, 2021) my appeal (Nichols v. Newsom) was again under submission for a decision. On August 19, 2021. The three-judge panel assigned to my appeal issued an order saying that submission of my case for a decision "remains vacated pending a decision by the Supreme Court on the petition for a writ of certiorari in Young v. Hawai’i, No. 20-1639. "  

The decision in my appeal had probably already been written. Judge Bybee is one of the three judges on my panel and one of the eleven judges on the Young v. Hawaii en banc panel. The decision in Young v. Hawaii was decided the same day it was argued before its eleven-judge panel.  

However, the threshold question in Young v. Hawaii was never answered by the Young v. Hawaii en banc panel opinion. The threshold question was whether or not the Second Amendment extended outside the interior of our homes. The en banc court ducked that question and instead decided that small and concealable arms are not protected by the Second Amendment and therefore there is no right to carry them openly or concealed.

But most of all, the United States Supreme Court granted a cert petition in a concealed carry case out of New York and held the Young v. Hawaii cert petition which was a handgun Open Carry case (Mr. Young forfeited his concealed carry claim before the en banc panel of judges).

SCOTUS granted the Young v. Hawaii cert petition, vacated the 9th circuit court of appeals en banc petition and remanded the case back to the 9th circuit for proceedings consistent with its opinion in NYSRPA v. Bruen on June 30, 2022.

I am not an attorney. There is no payday waiting for me at the end of my lawsuit. There will not be a million-dollar check from the state awarding me legal fees and costs. At best, I will get back my filing fees and partial reimbursement for some copying costs and postage. At worst, I will lose and the court will award legal fees and costs to the State of California.

Current Status of California Open Carry Lawsuit.

On September 12, 2022, a three-judge panel of the 9th circuit court of appeals vacated the judgment that had been entered in favor of the State of California and remanded my lawsuit back to the district court for a do-over in light of NYSRPA v. Bruen. I filed a motion to lift the mandate and for an extension of time to file a petition for rehearing/rehearing en banc on September 14th. If my motion is granted then my appeal will remain in the 9th circuit court of appeals. As of October 26, 2022, the motion is still pending.

On October 26, 2022, the district court ordered the filing of a joint status report answering four questions. The first of the four questions ask if the district court has jurisdiction to proceed while my motion is still pending in the 9th circuit court of appeals.

Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta took the position that the district court is not bound by any binding court opinion, not even NYSRPA v. Bruen which held we have the right to carry loaded firearms in public. The district court judge and magistrate judge agreed and said it is going to give the defendants until 2024 (or 2025) to prove that the United States Supreme Court opinions in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen should be overruled by the district court judge, Sunshine Sykes.

This should not surprise you given that on May 1, 2014, district court judge Samuel James Otero compared firearms to crystal meth and people who carry firearms to dealers in crystal meth when he entered his final judgment in favor of the State of California.

On September 22, 2023, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied my petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc.

My petition for a writ of certiorari was filed with the United States Supreme Court on November 15, 2023. If it is denied then jurisdiction returns to the district court.

Charles Nichols, Petitioner

v.

Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, et al.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-526.html

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