Articles

11-10-2017 – The End of California Concealed Carry

10-15-2017 – Governor Brown Signs Bill Allowing Guns Inside of Gun-Free School Zones

10-12-2017 – Is There a Right to Keep and Bear Arms? 9th Circuit to Decide in 2018

9-12-2017 – NRA Open Carry Lawsuit Opposes Open Carry

9-3-2017 – Supreme Court Long Conference on September 25, 2017

8-14-2017 – A Declaration That Open Carry Is the Right

7-28-2017 – Transcript Released in NRA’s Fake Open Carry Lawsuit

7-24-2017 – 50th Anniversary of California’s Loaded Open Carry Ban

7-12-2017 – Can we Save Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

6-27-2017 – Supreme Court Decides to Wait for Another Second Amendment Case

6/15/2017 – The Evil Practice of Carrying Weapons Secretly

6/6/2017 – NRA Lawyer says Odds are Supreme Court will NOT take Concealed Carry Case

6/2/2017 – The NRA Lost Another Second Amendment Appeal Today

5/29/2017 – Lead Plaintiff in Supreme Court Concealed Carry Appeal says Courts are Corrupt

5/23/2017 – Peruta Concealed Carry Lawsuit has Waited 2,768 Days – Supreme Court says Wait Longer

5/20/2017 – Second Amendment Case Peruta vs. California May Strike-Out at Supreme Court

5/03/2017 – Did the NRA Take a Dive in its Fake Open Carry Lawsuit?

5/01/2017 – Supreme Court Again Silent on Second Amendment

04/22/2017 – Supreme Court Math and Concealed Carry in Peruta v. California

04/14/2017 – Federal Judge Upholds Nonexistent Gun Ban

04/12/2017 – Concealed Carry, Incest, Gay Marriage and the Supreme Court

04/05/2017 – Justice Neil Gorsuch and the Second Amendment

3/29/2017 – The Next Second Amendment Handgun Carry Case to Go Down in Flames

3/28/2017 – Federal Judge Tells NRA to Put Up or Shut Up in Open Carry Lawsuit

3/22/2017 – Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor Finally Recognizes the Second Amendment

3/13/2017 – Another Second Amendment Appeal Shot-Down by the 9th Circuit

3/10/2017 – US Supreme Court to Decide Concealed Carry Petition in Two Weeks

3/5/2017 – The Florida Supreme Court Just Handed The US Supreme Court a Second Amendment Case It Can’t Refuse

2/23/2017 – California Asks Supreme Court to Wait For Nichols v. Brown Open Carry Appeal

2/15/2017 – NRA Got Spanked for Valentine’s Day!

2/3/2017 – President Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch

1/24/2017 -A Concealed Carry Case SCOTUS Can’t Refuse

1/23/2017 -President Trump’s Judicial Opportunity and Conundrum

1/13/2017 -NRA Tells Supreme Court Open Carry is Perverse

1/11/2017 – NRA Drops Supreme Court Concealed Carry Appeal

12/30/2016 – NRA Asks US Supreme Court To Hear Two Concealed Carry Lawsuits

12/10/2016 – National Concealed Carry Snake Oil Law Will Fail

11/29/2016 – What Lies Ahead for the Second Amendment?

11/10/2016 – The Second Amendment and President Trump

10/03/2016 – A Federal 9th Circuit Judge Finally Finds a Right to Bear Arms in Public

9/28/2016 – Are You Protected by the Fourth Amendment if You Carry a Firearm?

9/20/2016 – Two Concealed Carry Cases Fire Blanks in U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

9/8/2016 – Another Second Amendment Appeal Crashing and Burning in 9th Circuit

8/24/2016 – Concealed Carry Snake Oil and Kool-Aid Peddlers Leave Town for DC

8/18/2016 – The NRA Files Legal Challenge To California Open Carry Bans – But Not Really

8/17/2016 – The Battle for the Second Amendment Moves to Hawaii

8/15/2016 – There is No Right to Concealed Carry – 9th Circuit Denies Full Court Petitions

8/5/2016 – Did California Lie to 11 Federal Judges in Second Amendment Lawsuits?

7/15/2016 – God Save The US From The Second Amendment Lawyers

7/8/2016 – NRA Segregation Now, Tomorrow, and Forever Position Must Fail

7/4/2016 – Try Recalling California’s Anti-Gun Politicians Before Starting Your Revolution

6/27/2016 – NRA Head Wayne LaPierre Really, Really Hates the Second Amendment

6/24/2016 – Judges Who Uphold Bans on Concealed Carry Are Not the Same as Judges Who Look the Other Way When Police Murder People in the Street

6/15/2016 – Where is the NRA’s California Open Carry Lawsuit?

6/13/2016 – What’s Next for the Right to Carry Firearms in Public?

6/8/2016 – Florida Supreme Court Justices Voice Contempt for the Second Amendment

6/5/2016 – Florida Supreme Court to Hear Second Amendment Carry Case with National Ramifications

5/17/2016 – The Second Amendment and the Concealed Carry Problem

5/11/2016 – Federal Court of Appeals Goes Berserk During Second Amendment Gun Case Hearing

5/10/2016 – California Supreme Court Shoots Itself In Foot Over Gun Case

4/25/2016 – Second Amendment Foundation Files Another Concealed Carry Lawsuit: May Backfire

4/13/2016 – Has the NRA Come to Bury the Second Amendment or to Defend It? –

4/6/2016 – Second Amendment Must Wait A Bit Longer In 9th Circuit

3/26/2016 – Concealed Carry of Concealable Firearm in a Vehicle Now a Crime of Moral Turpitude

3/21/2016 – Supreme Court decision wasn’t about stun guns – It was about the Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller which is bad news for concealed carry

3/7/2016 – How to Stop Anti-Gun Bills in California from Becoming Law

3/3/2016 – The California Supreme Court Case Which Could Upend the Gun-Groups Concealed Carry Lawsuits

2/24/2016 – The Second Amendment – Checkmate in Four Moves?

2/10/2016 – Why California’s Waiting Period to Purchase a Firearm Will Be Upheld

2/3/2016 – Florida House of Representatives Passes Handgun Open Carry Bill

1/27/2016 – The NRA Thinks Not Getting Caught In A Lie Is The Same Thing As Telling The Truth

12/11/2015 – Why Were the San Bernardino Shooting Victims Unarmed?

11/20/2015 – Attorney Alan Gura May Have Fumbled Another Second Amendment Case

11/20/2015 – HELP WANTED: Competent Second Amendment Lawyer – Inquire Within

11/9/2015 – The Supreme Court may have Finally Found its Next Second Amendment Case

9/2/2015 – Full Derp Battle over Concealed Carry in District of Columbia

9/1/2015 – National Rifle Association Drops Lawsuit against San Francisco

8/31/2015 – The Future of the Second Amendment in California and Hawaii

8/25/2015 – Yes, America, the Second Amendment is a Universal Right!

8/14/2015 – Will this be the Supreme Court’s Next Second Amendment Case?

7/3/2015 – The Future of Open Carry in California Looks Bright

6/16/2015 – State of California Concedes Second Amendment Extends Outside the Home

6/8/2015 – The Second Amendment is Now in the Hands of these Eleven Judges

6/8/2015 – Supreme Court Won’t Hear Second Amendment Cases Until there is a Circuit Split

5/29/2015 – NRA Opposes Open Carry – NRA Now Takes Credit for New Texas Handgun Open Carry Law

5/26/2015 – Four Years Ago Today: Is Open Carry The Right Guaranteed By The Second Amendment

5/18/2015 – Why the Second Amendment Keeps Losing in Court

5/2/2015 – Black Panther Party Invades California Capitol – 48 Years Ago Today

5/1/2015 – The NRA Rearranges Deck Chairs on the Titanic

4/22/2015 – Chief Judge of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Grants Motion of Lone Voice Defending the Second Amendment Open Carry Right

4/11/2015 – An Open Letter to the Orange County Register’s Editorial on Concealed Carry

4/03/2015 – Another Shoe Drops on the California Concealed Carry Lawsuits

2/27/2015 – Federal Judge Says No Second Amendment Right To Own Firearms

12/6/2014 – The First Shoe Drops On California Concealed Carry Lawsuits

11/30/2014 – Open Carry Gunfight At The California Corral: Start Of Year Four

11/30/2014 – California Open Carry Gunfight Begins Its Fourth Year

11/12/2014 – California Concealed Carry Permits – The Fat Lady Still Hasn’t Sung in Peruta v. San Diego

10/17/2014 – It may be Legal to Carry a Handgun in the Nation’s Capitol by Christmas

10/3/2014 – Another California Concealed Carry Lawsuit Loses before a Federal Judge

8/18/2014 – District of Columbia asks Court for More Time to Enact New Handgun Carry Ban

8/13/2014 – California Concealed Carry Case Peruta v. San Diego – Poised to Move or Stuck in the Mud?

7/30/2014 – Federal Judge Reluctantly Stays his Ruling in DC Handgun Ban

7/28/2014 – The DC Handgun Carry Decision – Throwing Victory into the Jaws of Defeat

7/26/2014 – Ban on Carrying Firearms in Public is Unconstitutional says DC Judge

7/21/2014 – The non-repeal of D.C., Gun-Control

7/2/2014 – US Supreme Court Still Silent On Second Amendment

6/28/2014 – Federal Judge Says Minorities Barred From Bringing Civil Rights Lawsuits

6/7/2014 – The NRA Supports Open Carry Except When The NRA Opposes Open Carry

6/2/2014 – NRA Lawyer Says California Concealed Carry Decision Likely To Be Overturned

6/1/2014 – NRA leadership Comes Out Of The Closet In Its Opposition To Open Carry

Please
donate $10, $25, $50 or $100 to the legal fund to restore your
right to openly carry a loaded firearm in California.

Click
here to donate to the legal fund

(Credit
or Debit cards – Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover or eCheck)


GoFundMe PayPal

Please donate $10, $25, $50 or $100 to the fight to restore your right to openly carry a loaded firearm in California.

Click here to donate.

Piryx

(Credit or Debit cards – Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover or eCheck)

BitCoins 1AdtAJfcdBkA777fwtVhmCwSwCKGTFrgGz Press@CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

Flanagan et al v. Becerra et al - NRA Fake Open Carry Lawsuit

Share

 On November 6, 2017, the presiding judge issued a tentative ruling in favor of the state.

His formal ruling was scheduled for December 4, 2017.

8 days this decision is past due!




On 9-11-2017, Both Sides Filed Motions for Summary (final) Judgment.

The NRA Cannot Claim that this Lawsuit is an Open Carry Lawsuit in any Shape or Form.

It Never Was!




The NRA did not file an Amended Complaint by the May 1, 2017, deadline.

Wow!

Hearing on the Motions to Dismiss Took Place on February, 13, 2017 – Motions to dismiss granted on February 24, 2017

The trial is currently scheduled for February 6, 2018 at 9:00 a.m – 55 days 13 hours 32 minutes 36 seconds from now.

It has been 482 days days since this case was filed!

It has been 291 days days since this case was dismissed!

The motion to dismiss by the Attorney General was granted after 140 days!

The motion to dismiss by the Los Angeles County Sheriff was granted after 133 days!

The district court judge failed to set a new filing deadline in his dismissal which means May 1, 2017, the old deadline, still stood.  But no amended complaint was filed!

September 11, 2017: Last day to file motions (including discovery motions) –

October 2, 2017: Deadline to file opposition to any motion for summary judgment filed by the last day to file motions –

October 16, 2017: Deadline to file reply in support of any motion for summary judgment filed by the last day to file motions-  

November 6, 2017: Last day to hear motions (including discovery motions) –

November 13, 2017: Supplemental briefs due –

December 4, 2017: Anticipated ruling on all motions –

Flanagan et al v. Harris et al – NRA Open Carry, sort of, but not really!NO CCW FOR YOU

This is the promised Open Carry lawsuit by the NRA in the wake of its humiliating concealed carry defeat in Peruta v. San Diego.  Incredibly, after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that there is no right to carry a weapon concealed in public, this “Open Carry” lawsuit filed by the NRA’s official state organization (California Rifle and Pistol Association) seeks concealed carry permits and contains as much of an Open Carry challenge as a can of pork and beans contains pork.

In short, there ain’t much and it ain’t very good.

This lawsuit is not an Open Carry lawsuit.  The lawsuit is a rehash of the Peruta concealed carry lawsuit which was shot down in flames.  This “Open Carry” lawsuit seeks an injunction against California Penal Code section 26150(b)(2) which authorizes county sheriffs to issue handgun Open Carry licenses if the county has a population of fewer than 200,000 people.  If the NRA is successful then the county sheriffs would be prohibited from issuing handgun Open Carry permits everywhere in the state.

This is what is going to happen with this “Open Carry” lawsuit.

  1. Both of the defendants will file a motion to dismiss.  And both did.
  2. The Sheriff will be dismissed from the lawsuit with prejudice because the concealed carry claims against him are precluded by the en banc decision in Peruta v. San Diego.  And that is exactly what happened. 
  3. The Attorney General’s motion to dismiss will be granted but the NRA will be granted leave to amend its complaint in order to state a viable claim against California’s Open Carry bans.  And that is exactly what happened.
  4. The NRA will file its First Amended Complaint.  The NRA did not file an Amended Complaint.  Which is insane.  When one subtracts all of the paragraphs of the original complaint which were dismissed by the district court judge, there is nothing left.  Certainly not a Complaint which states a viable Open Carry challenge.  Given that no Amended Complaint was filed, 5-8 will likely never be reached unless the NRA asks to file a First Amended Complaint and it is granted, despite the NRA failing to meet the May 1, 2017, deadline to file an amended complaint.
  5. If the amended Complaint states a viable claim against California’s Open Carry bans then the case will move on to discovery after which both sides will file dispositive motions unless there are triable issues of fact for a jury to decide (or be decided in a bench trial).
  6. If the amended Complaint fails to state a viable claim against California’s Open Carry ban then the case will be dismissed with prejudice without discovery or the filing of dispositive motions.
  7. The Attorney General will likely file a motion to stay this case pending a decision in my California Open Carry lawsuit which challenges the same state laws.  If that motion is filed then it is likely to be filed before discovery and before the filing of any dispositive motions.  If the motion to stay is filed then it is likely to be granted.
  8. If no motion to stay is filed then steps 2-6 will take a year or so.  If a judge hostile to the Second Amendment is assigned then it could take two or three years before there is a final decision by the district court judge in this case.

Keep in mind that at this point the NRA does not present a viable challenge to California’s Open Carry bans or even standing to challenge California’s Open Carry bans.  Indeed, one would be hard pressed to read any legal challenge to California’s Open Carry bans from the Complaint.  The Complaint as currently written probably doesn’t even have standing to bring a concealed carry challenge even absent the en banc decision in Peruta v. San Diego which precludes the concealed carry challenge raised in this Complaint.  There are many elements to a lawsuit in order to have legal “standing” to challenge a law.  Every one of those elements is absent in this Complaint.  Either the NRA lawyers are incompetent or they know this and have filed this lawsuit for other reasons?  Is one of those reasons to separate the NRA all-day-suckers from their money?

It is highly likely that there will be a judgment issued in my case by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals before an appeal is filed in this case.  If I am successful then this case will be dismissed as moot.  If I am unsuccessful then there is no alternative legal theory (or any legal theory) raised in this NRA lawsuit which will not be precluded by a decision in my appeal.

The NRA’s Peruta v. San Diego concealed carry lawsuit was doomed from the beginning.

This “Open Carry” lawsuit which is, for all intents and purposes a concealed carry lawsuit is doomed from the beginning.

So why did the NRA file this lawsuit?  Because there are millions of morons out there who have drank the NRA Kool-Aid and who will give the NRA money because of this lawsuit.

Here is an article I published on the lawsuit -> The NRA Files Legal Challenge To California Open Carry Bans – But Not Really

Many of the documents filed in this case can be found here.

The judge assigned to this case, John A. Kronstadt, has already upheld a concealed carry lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff in Jonathan Birdt v. Beck et al.  Order Granting Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment in Birdt v. Beck et al

I am greatly amused to see that the state’s attorney representing Attorney General Harris is the same attorney up against me in my California Open Carry lawsuit (Jonathan Eisenberg).

Complaint – Filed on August 17, 2016

Answer from Attorney General Harris (most likely motion to dismiss) due October 7, 2016, by stipulation.  And I was right, Harris filed a motion to dismiss on October 7, 2016.

24 – Motion to Dismiss by Harris

24-1 MPA in support of MTD by Harris

Answer from Los Angeles County Sheriff (most likely motion to dismiss) due October 14, 2016, by stipulation.  And I was right, Los Angeles County Sheriff McDonnell filed a motion to dismiss on October 14, 2016.

27 – Sheriff Mcdonnells Motion to Dismiss

It is doubtful that there will actually be a hearing on the motion to dismiss by AG Harris but if there is to be one then it is currently scheduled for February 13, 2017.

It is doubtful that there will actually be a hearing on the motion to dismiss by Sheriff McDonnell but if there is to be one then it is currently scheduled for February 13, 2017.

Order Setting Scheduling Conference for February 13, 2017

LASD Briefing Schedule

Opposition to Motions to Dismiss filed on December 1, 2016.

33 – Attorney General Reply – Flanagan et al v. Harris et al filed on January 9, 2017.

34 – Sheriff McDonnel’s Reply – Flanagan et al v. Harris et al filed on January 9, 2017.

35 – JOINT RULE 16(b)/26(f) REPORT filed on February 3, 2017.

38 – Flanagan v. Harris Tentative Ruling and Order filed on February 14, 2017.

39 – Flanagan v Becerra -Order on motion to dismiss filed on February 24, 2017.

40 – Answer to Complaint filed on March 8, 2017.

41 – Transcript – Michelle Flanagan et al v Kamala Harris et al

43 – Joint Stipulation to Extend Discovery and Motions Deadline

43 – 2 – Flanagan v Becerra – Proposed Order to Extend Discovery and Motions Deadline

44 – ORDER Re Stipulation to Extend Dates – Flanagan v. Becerra

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

45 – Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment 35 pages 164 kb
45-1 – Declaration of P. Patty Li 3 pages 306 kb
45-2 – Exhibit 1 7 pages 149 kb
45-3 – Exhibit 2 9 pages 172 kb
45-4 – Exhibit 3 7 pages 160 kb
45-5 – Exhibit 4 79 pages 0.8 mb
45-6 – Exhibit 5 58 pages 2.4 mb
45-7 – Exhibit 6 14 pages 223 kb
45-8 – Exhibit 7 51 pages 2.2 mb
45-9 – Exhibit 8 34 pages 4.9 mb
45-10 – Exhibit 8 – Pt 2 51 pages 3.7 mb
45-11 – Exhibit 9 – Pt 1 47 pages 7.3 mb
45-12 – Exhibit 9 – Pt 2 56 pages 4.5 mb
45-13 – Exhibit 10 13 pages 3.1 mb
45-14 – Exhibit 11 33 pages 288 kb
45-15 – Request for Judicial Notice 4 pages 29 kb
45-16 – Exhibit RJN 1 59 pages 8.5 mb
45-17 – Exhibit RJN 2 74 pages 2.3 mb
45-18 – Exhibit 3 and 4, part 1 40 pages 4.9 mb
45-19 – Exhibit 3 and 4, part 2 35 pages 4.7 mb

46 – Defendant’s Statement of Uncontrovered Facts

47 – Defendant’s Notice of Loding of Proposed Judgment

47 – 1 – Defendant’s Proposed Judgment

End of Filings for Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment

NRA’s Motion for Summary Judgment

48 – Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment 3 pages 146 kb
48 – 1 – Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment 36 pages 0.5 mb
48 – 2 – Declaration of Michelle Flanagan in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment 6 pages 2.2 mb
48 – 3 – Declaration of Samuel Golden in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment 4 pages 151 kb
48 – 4 – Declaration of Dominic Nardone in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment 6 pages 1.3 mb
48 – 5 – Declaration of Jacob Perkio in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment 6 pages 1.9 mb
48 – 6 – Declaration of Rick Travis in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment 4 pages 167 kb
48 – 7 – Declaration of Sean A. Brady in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment 87 pages 7.9 mb

49 – Request for Judicial Notice

50 – Statment of Uncontroverted Facts

51 – Proposed Judgment

The NRA lawyers did not lodge their proposed judgment.  I guessed they missed that day of law school.

End of Filings for NRA’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Miscellaneous

52 – Notice of Court to Plaintiffs that they did not lodge their proposed judgment

53 – Order strinking proposed judment by plaintiffs

54 – Motion to file Amicus brief by Everytown for Gun Safety

54 – 1 – Proposed Amicus brief by Everytown for Gun Safety

Opositions to Motions for Summary Judgment

55 – Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment

56 – Defendant’s Objections to Evidence Filed in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment

57 – Plaintiffs’ MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motion

58 – Plaintiffs’ Notice of Lodging

58 – 1 – Supplement Plaintiffs’ Additional Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law

59 – Plaintiffs’ Objection to Declaration and Evidence

59 – 1 – Exhibit 1

59 – 2 – Exhibit 2

59 – 3 – Exhibit 3

60 – Defendant’s Amended Objections

60 – 1 – Amended Proposed Order

61 – Defendant’s Objection to Evidence

62 – Notice of Errata to disregard docket number 61 filing

End of Oppositions to Motions for Summary Judgment

Reply Briefs Filed on October 16, 2017

63 – Defendant’s Reply in support of motion for summary judgment

63 – 1 – Declaration

63 – 2 – Declaration

63 – 3 – Exhibit 1

63 – 4 – Exhibit 2

63 – 5 – Exhibit 3

63 – 6 – Exhibit 4

63 – 7 – Exhibit 5

63 – 8 – Exhibit 6

63 – 9 – Notice of Amendment to Penal Code section 26400

64 – Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice

65 – Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendants opposition to summary judgment

66 – Defendant’s Objections to Evidence

66 – 1 – Proposed Order

End of Reply Briefs

68 – Flanagan v. Becerra tentative judgment

74 – Supplemental Brief by Attorney General

75 – Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief

Current Schedule

May 1, 2017: Last day to amend or add parties –
Not Set: Last day to participate in a settlement conference/mediation
Not Set: Last day to file notice of settlement / joint report re settlement
Not Set: Post Mediation Status Conference
June 1, 2017: Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off –
June 1, 2017: Initial Expert Disclosures –
June 30, 2017: Rebuttal Expert Disclosures –
July 28, 2017: New Date is August 21, 2017: Expert Discovery Cut-Off –
August 14, 2017: New Date is September 11, 2017: Last day to file motions (including discovery motions) –

Added Deadline by Judge Kronstadt – October 2, 2017: Deadline to file opposition to any motion for summary judgment filed by the last day to file motions –

Added Deadline by Judge Kronstadt – October 16, 2017Deadline to file reply in support of any motion for summary judgment filed by the last day to file motions-  

November 6, 2017: Last day to hear motions (including discovery motions) –
December 4, 2017: Anticipated ruling on all motions –
December 11, 2017: Last day to file direct testimony declarations –
December 15, 2017: Last day to file objections to direct testimony declarations – 3 days 4 hours 31 minutes 36 seconds
December 19, 2017: Anticipated ruling on direct testimony declarations/objections – 7 days 4 hours 31 minutes 36 seconds
January 2, 2018: Last day to file a status conference regarding any pretrial issues – 21 days 4 hours 31 minutes 36 seconds
January 8, 2018 at 3:00 p.m.: Final Pretrial Conference – 26 days 19 hours 32 minutes 36 seconds
February 6, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.: Court Trial (est. tbd days) – 55 days 13 hours 32 minutes 36 seconds




Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 4, 2017 – Nothing new, which is surprising.  The judge said that he planned on issuing his decision against the plaintiffs and for the defendant today.  And his orders are usually posted first thing in the morning.  It is now 5:53 PM and nothing.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 1, 2017 – Nothing new, but the case is expected to be dismissed with prejudice on Monday, December 4th.  It is far too late for this case to have any effect my Open Carry appeal which will probably be scheduled for oral argument in February.  It will take months for the appellate briefs to be filed in this case and many more months before oral argument is calendared, assuming that oral argument is calendared.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – November 29, 2017 – Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – November 13, 2017 – Supplemental briefs:

74 – Supplemental Brief by Attorney General

75 – Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – November 9, 2017 – More filings.

Doc.
No.
Dates Description
69
Filed & Entered:   11/09/2017
Docket Text Motion Related Document
70
Filed & Entered:   11/09/2017
Docket Text Notice of Lodging
71
Filed & Entered:   11/09/2017
Docket Text Notice of Lodging
72
Filed & Entered:   11/09/2017
Docket Text Errata
73
Filed & Entered:   11/09/2017
Docket Text Notice of Lodging

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – November 6, 2017 – Well, you can’t say I didn’t predict this.  I attended the hearing on the motions for summary judgment.  The hearing lasted less than an hour and I will write something up about the hearing in more detail when I have gotten some sleep (been up since 7pm last night).  The short version is that Presiding judge Kronstadt issued a tentative ruling in favor of the state of California against Open Carry.

On January 13, 2011, Judge Kronstadt issued a final judgment in a concealed carry case (Birdt v. Beck) in favor of the State of California.  In Judge Kronstadt’s opinion, the “core right” of the Second Amendment is limited to the home and as such, the judge’s version of intermediate scrutiny applies.  According to Judge Kronstadt’s version of intermediate scrutiny, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the literally decades of case law which has held that disputed facts are to be decided by a jury do not apply.  That’s right, Judge Kronstadt said that if the state is the defendant then the Federal rules do not apply.

Of course he did not cite any case in support of his decision given that he just made it up.  In any event, this case will not be going to trial.  It will go next to the court of appeals.  The final ruling will probably be issued on or around December 4th.

I will be filing an Amicus brief in this case when it is on appeal.

Full docket text for document 67:
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO ADHERE TO COURT’S STANDING ORDER RE THE PREPARATION OF EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS (DKTS. [60], [66], [69]) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: The Court has received the proposed orders regarding Plaintiffs Objections to the Declaration of P. Patty Li and Evidence Submitted in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. [59]), as well as Defendant’s Amended Objections to Evidence Filed in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. [60]) and Defendant’s Objections to Evidence Filed in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. [66]) (collectively, Objections), which do not comply with the Court’s Standing Order with respect to how such proposed orders shall be prepared. S.O., p. 16 (iii), p. 80. Counsel shall prepare the proposed orders consistent with the Standing Order, which shall be lodged pursuant to L.R. 52-4.1 by filing a “Notice of Lodging of Proposed Order Re…” with the proposed order e-filed as an attachment to the notice by 12:00 p.m. on November 9, 2017. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jaklc3, ) TEXT ONLY ENTRY

Doc.
No.
Dates Description
67
Filed & Entered:   11/06/2017
Docket Text Text Only Scheduling Notice

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – October 31, 2017 – Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – October 17, 2017 – New filings.

62 – Notice of Errata to disregard docket number 61 filing

Reply Briefs Filed on October 16, 2017

63 – Defendant’s Reply in support of motion for summary judgment

63 – 1 – Declaration

63 – 2 – Declaration

63 – 3 – Exhibit 1

63 – 4 – Exhibit 2

63 – 5 – Exhibit 3

63 – 6 – Exhibit 4

63 – 7 – Exhibit 5

63 – 8 – Exhibit 6

63 – 9 – Notice of Amendment to Penal Code section 26400

64 – Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice

65 – Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendants opposition to summary judgment

66 – Defendant’s Objections to Evidence

66 – 1 – Proposed Order

 

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – October 13, 2017 – A couple of new filings.

61 – Defendant’s Objection to Evidence

Full docket text for document 61:
re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to File Amicus Brief [54] filed by Defendant Kamala D. Harris. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 4, # (2) Exhibit 5, # (3) Exhibit 6)(Li, Peiyin)

Full docket text for document 62:
NOTICE of Errata Regarding ECF No. 61 filed by Defendant Kamala D. Harris. (Li, Peiyin)

Doc.
No.
Dates Description
61
Filed & Entered:   10/13/2017
Docket Text Objection/Opposition (Motion related)
62
Filed & Entered:   10/13/2017
Docket Text Notice (Other)

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – October 3, 2017 – Amended objection and proposed order filed by Attorney General Becerra.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – October 2, 2017 – Attorney General Becerra has filed his opposition to the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

55 – Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment

56 – Defendant’s Objections to Evidence Filed in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment

57 – Plaintiffs’ MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motion

58 – Plaintiffs’ Notice of Lodging

58 – 1 – Supplement Plaintiffs’ Additional Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law

59 – Plaintiffs’ Objection to Declaration and Evidence

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – September 29, 2017 – Motion to file an Amicus brief filed on September 18th.

54 – Motion to file Amicus brief by Everytown for Gun Safety

54 – 1 – Proposed Amicus brief by Everytown for Gun Safety

Full docket text for document 54:
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to File Amicus Brief filed by Amicus Curiae Everytown for Gun Safety. Motion set for hearing on 11/6/2006 at 08:30 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit Amicus Curiae Brief) (Attorney Kevin K Eng added to party Everytown for Gun Safety(pty:am)) (Eng, Kevin)

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – September 15, 2017 – Either the local rules of the Federal Central District have changed or Judge Kronstadt does not require proposed judgments to be filed.  Given that the clerk filed a notice of deficiency for the NRA’s failure to lodge its proposed judgment which was followed up by an order of the court stating that it does not require motions to have a proposed judgment, I suspect the rules of the Central District haven’t changed.

52 – Notice of Court to Plaintiffs that they did not lodge their proposed judgment

53 – Order strinking proposed judment by plaintiffs

Doc.
No.
Dates Description
53
Filed & Entered:   09/15/2017
Docket Text Striking Electronically Filed Documents (G-106)
52
Filed & Entered:   09/13/2017
Docket Text Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G-112A) – optional html form

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – September 11, 2017 – Much to my surprise, the state was the first to file its motion for summary judgment.  Somewhat to my surprise, the state’s attorney (who is also the state’s attorney in my California Open Carry lawsuit) seems to have realized that under heightened scrutiny the burden of proof is on the state.  In my lawsuit, the state’s attorney did not submit any evidence (not even a declaration, expert or otherwise, in defense of the California Open Carry bans) which means the only way I lose my 2A claim is for the court of appeals to conclude that the Second Amendment does not exist even one inch outside the doors to my home.

This time around, the state dumped 709 pages of filings onto the judge’s desk.  Given that district court Judge Kronstadt has already said that he believes this case involves pure questions of law, I’m not sure how much he is going to appreciate having to shovel through 700 pages of filings.

EDIT 10:10 PM: The NRA has filed its motion for summary judgment.  I will check back later this evening for the NRA’s proposed Order and lodging thereof.

EDIT 10:39 PM: The NRA filed its proposed judgment.  The NRA dropped whatever challenge it may have stated in its Complaint to the handgun Open Carry licensing laws.  Still waiting for the lodging by the NRA of its proposed order.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

45 – Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment 35 pages 164 kb
45-1 – Declaration of P. Patty Li 3 pages 306 kb
45-2 – Exhibit 1 7 pages 149 kb
45-3 – Exhibit 2 9 pages 172 kb
45-4 – Exhibit 3 7 pages 160 kb
45-5 – Exhibit 4 79 pages 0.8 mb
45-6 – Exhibit 5 58 pages 2.4 mb
45-7 – Exhibit 6 14 pages 223 kb
45-8 – Exhibit 7 51 pages 2.2 mb
45-9 – Exhibit 8 34 pages 4.9 mb
45-10 – Exhibit 8 – Pt 2 51 pages 3.7 mb
45-11 – Exhibit 9 – Pt 1 47 pages 7.3 mb
45-12 – Exhibit 9 – Pt 2 56 pages 4.5 mb
45-13 – Exhibit 10 13 pages 3.1 mb
45-14 – Exhibit 11 33 pages 288 kb
45-15 – Request for Judicial Notice 4 pages 29 kb
45-16 – Exhibit RJN 1 59 pages 8.5 mb
45-17 – Exhibit RJN 2 74 pages 2.3 mb
45-18 – Exhibit 3 and 4, part 1 40 pages 4.9 mb
45-19 – Exhibit 3 and 4, part 2 35 pages 4.7 mb

46 – Defendant’s Statement of Uncontrovered Facts

47 – Defendant’s Notice of Loding of Proposed Judgment

47 – 1 – Defendant’s Proposed Judgment

End of Filings for Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment

NRA’s Motion for Summary Judgment

48 – Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment 3 pages 146 kb
48 – 1 – Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment 36 pages 0.5 mb
48 – 2 – Declaration of Michelle Flanagan in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment 6 pages 2.2 mb
48 – 3 – Declaration of Samuel Golden in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment 4 pages 151 kb
48 – 4 – Declaration of Dominic Nardone in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment 6 pages 1.3 mb
48 – 5 – Declaration of Jacob Perkio in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment 6 pages 1.9 mb
48 – 6 – Declaration of Rick Travis in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment 4 pages 167 kb
48 – 7 – Declaration of Sean A. Brady in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment 87 pages 7.9 mb

49 – Request for Judicial Notice

50 – Statment of Uncontroverted Facts

51 – Proposed Judgment

The NRA lawyers did not lodge their proposed judgment.  I guessed they missed that day of law school.

End of Filings for NRA’s Motion for Summary Judgment




Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – September 7, 2017 – Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – August 31, 2017 – Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – August 22, 2017 – The expert discovery cut-off date occurred on August 21st.  No further extensions were requested or granted.  September 11th is the last day to file motions.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – August 4, 2017 – Judge Kronstadt modified the schedule requested by the parties and extended some of the due dates.  He also added two new due dates in the month of October.  One for filing an opposition to any motion for summary judgment and the other for filing a reply in support of any motion for summary judgment.  It is very likely that this case will end on, or before, December 4, 2017.  Judge Kronstadt had indicated in the hearing on the motions to dismiss that he thinks this case involves pure questions of law.  Cases which involve pure questions of law have no need for a trial.

Added Deadline by Judge Kronstadt – October 2, 2017: Deadline to file opposition to any motion for summary judgment filed by the last day to file motions –

Added Deadline by Judge Kronstadt – October 16, 2017: Deadline to file reply in support of any motion for summary judgment filed by the last day to file motions-  

44 – ORDER Re Stipulation to Extend Dates – Flanagan v. Becerra

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 31, 2017 – Well, its 10:24 PM on the night of July 31, 2017, and Judge Kronstadt never signed the joint stipulation to extend the deadlines for expert discover and to extend the last day to file motions.  The stipulation was filed on July 21st.  As of now, the expert discovery cut-off date was July 28th and the last day to file motions, including discovery motions, is August 14th.  The trial date is still set for February 6, 2018, but I really don’t think the NRA is going to survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings or motion for summary judgment.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 26, 2017 – New activity.  The transcripts of the hearing on the motion to dismiss is finally released.  The parties filed a joint stipulation to extend the deadlines for expert discovery and to extend the last day to file motions.  The stipulation filed on July 21st still has not been granted.

41 – Transcript – Michelle Flanagan et al v Kamala Harris et al

43 – Joint Stipulation to Extend Discovery and Motions Deadline

43 – 2 – Flanagan v Becerra – Proposed Order to Extend Discovery and Motions Deadline

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 7, 2017 – Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 30, 2017 – Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 31, 2017 – Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 2,  2017 at 12:04 AM– The NRA did not file an Amended Complaint.  This means that the NRA is stuck with its originally filed Complaint, a Complaint which was gutted by the motions to dismiss and a Complaint which does not state a viable Open Carry claim.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 30,  2017 – Nothing new.  Check back tomorrow.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 26,  2017 – Transcript filed.  Unfortunately, the transcript is currently restricted.  Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/25/2017.

Doc.
No.
Dates Description
41
Filed & Entered:   04/26/2017
Docket Text Transcript (CV)
42
Filed & Entered:   04/26/2017
Docket Text Notice of Filing Transcript

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 9,  2017 – With three weeks left to file an amended complaint because their initial complaint was dismissed, the NRA lawyers’ website still does not reflect that their initial complaint was dismissed.

Michelle Flanagan, et al. vs. California Attorney General Kamala Harris, et al.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – March 31,  2017 – Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – March 21,  2017 – Here we are nearly one month to the day after the motions to dismiss were formally granted and the NRA/CRPA still has not filed an amended Complaint.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – February 24,  2017 – The court entered its formal Order on the motions to dismiss by Los Angeles County Sheriff McDonnel and former California Attorney General Harris (Becerra is automatically substituted for Harris).  The motion to dismiss with prejudice by Sheriff McDonnel was grated in full.  AG Harris did not move to dismiss Flanagan’s Open Carry claim “at this time” but the court granted her motion to dismiss, with prejudice, Flanagan’s concealed carry and equal protection claim.

A dismissal with prejudice means that the Flanagan plaintiffs may not file an amended complaint which realleges that the plaintiffs have a right to carry “in some manner” or to carry concealed.  The NRA/CRPA will have to now file an Amended Complaint which challenges only California’s Open Carry bans (and establishes that they have standing to challenge California’s Open Carry bans) or they can voluntarily dismiss their lawsuit or they can have their lawsuit dismissed with prejudice in its entirety if they do not file an Amended Complaint which raises a proper legal challenge to California’s Open Carry bans.

My bet is that the NRA/CRPA will not amend its Complaint to properly challenge California’s Open Carry bans.  They will either: 1) voluntarily dismiss their lawsuit or 2) file a substantially identical amended complaint which argues that they have a right to carry in “some manner” or 3) file an amended complaint which fails to establish that the plaintiffs have standing to challenge California’s Open Carry bans which would result with a dismissal with prejudice of their complaint leaving them only with an appeal.

39 – Flanagan v Becerra -Order on motion to dismiss

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – February 14,  2017 – The court entered a Tentative Ruling and Order today.  Dated yesterday it states:

“The Court states its tentative views that it is inclined to grant in part Defendant Harris’ Motion to Dismiss for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (the “Harris Motion”) and grant Defendant McDonell’s Motion to Dismiss (the “McDonell Motion”). Counsel address the Court. The Court takes the Harris Motion and McDonell Motion UNDER SUBMISSION and an order will be issued.”

The Court also set a scheduling Order.  A key date is the last date for the Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint and add new parties (May 1, 2017).

Now that the NRA/CRPA’s lawsuit for concealed carry has all but formally been dismissed with prejudice, the NRA/CRPA has one final opportunity to amend its Complaint to actually challenge California’s Open Carry bans. Frankly, I don’t think the NRA/CRPA is capable of filing a lawsuit which seeks to overturn California’s Open Carry bans. On, or before, May 1st we will know for certain when the NRA/CRPA brain trust files its Amended Complaint.

38 – Flanagan v. Harris Tentative Ruling and Order

Full docket text for document 36:
Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Joshua R Dale counsel for Plaintiffs Michelle Flanagan, Samuel Golden, Dominic Nardone, Jacob Perkio, The California Rifle and Pistol Association. Adding Joshua Robert Dale as counsel of record for Plaintiffs Michelle Flanagan, Samuel Golden, Dominic Nardone, Jacob Perkio, and The California Rifle & Pistol Association for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Attorney for Plaintiffs Joshua Robert Dale. (Attorney Joshua R Dale added to party Michelle Flanagan(pty:pla), Attorney Joshua R Dale added to party Samuel Golden(pty:pla), Attorney Joshua R Dale added to party Dominic Nardone(pty:pla), Attorney Joshua R Dale added to party Jacob Perkio(pty:pla), Attorney Joshua R Dale added to party The California Rifle and Pistol Association(pty:pla))(Dale, Joshua)

Full docket text for document 37:
Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Clinton B Monfort counsel for Plaintiffs Michelle Flanagan, Samuel Golden, Dominic Nardone, Jacob Perkio, The California Rifle and Pistol Association. Clinton B. Monfort is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Attorney Clinton B. Monfort. (Monfort, Clinton)

Doc.
No.
Dates Description
38
Filed: 02/13/2017
Entered: 02/14/2017
Docket Text Order on Motion to Dismiss Case
36
Filed & Entered:   02/08/2017
Docket Text Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)
37
Filed & Entered:   02/08/2017
Docket Text Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – February 13,  2017 – The hearing on the motions to dismiss took place this morning.  According to the Local Rules of the Federal Central District of California the judge is supposed to issue his decision on the motions to dismiss within 120 days.  Unless you are new here you know by now that judges do what they please.  That said, I think we should have a decision fairly quickly.  The judge assigned to this case had already held that there is no right to carry a handgun concealed in another case before the Peruta en banc decision was handed down.  Couple that with the fact that nowhere in the Complaint nor in any declaration do the Plaintiffs articulate a concrete plan to violate California’s Open Carry bans, the natural born plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the bans.  Normally, if an individual plaintiff has standing that would confer standing on the CRPA to be a plaintiff in this case but the CRPA has spent significant resources these past years fighting to UPHOLD California’s Open Carry bans and has a cert petition pending with SCOTUS which argues that California can, should and must ban Open Carry.  In light of the CRPA’s long opposition to Open Carry I don’t see how the judge can conclude that the CRPA has standing to challenge California’s Open Carry bans, even if the CRPA were actually challenging the Open Carry bans, which it isn’t.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – February 10,  2017 – Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – February 3,  2017 – New activity.  Take a look at the proposed schedule.  Even if the Complaint is not dismissed with prejudice and the Plaintiffs are allowed to file an Amended Complaint, there would not be a decision until December at the earliest.  35 – JOINT RULE 16(b)/26(f) REPORT

Full docket text for document 35:
JOINT RULE 16(b)/26(f) REPORT filed by Plaintiffs Michelle Flanagan, Samuel Golden, Dominic Nardone, Jacob Perkio, The California Rifle and Pistol Association. (Dale, Joshua)

Doc.
No.
Dates Description
35
Filed & Entered:   02/02/2017
Docket Text Report

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – February 1,  2017 – Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 23,  2017 – Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 10,  2017 – Well, the NRA is slow to update its own website for its own cases and so, at great expense ($1.90), here are the two reply briefs:

33 – Attorney General Reply – Flanagan et al v. Harris et al

34 – Sheriff McDonnel’s Reply – Flanagan et al v. Harris et al

Doc.
No.
Dates Description
33
Filed & Entered:   01/09/2017
Docket Text Reply (Motion related)
34
Filed & Entered:   01/09/2017
Docket Text Reply (Motion related)

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 30,  2016 – Nothing new.

Update December 16, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – Nothing new to speak of.

Full docket text for document 32:
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER NOTIFYING PARTIES OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR COURT by Judge John A. Kronstadt: Effective December 19, 2016, Judge Kronstadt will relocate to the 1st Street Courthouse. His new address is 350 W. 1st Street, Courtroom 10B, Los Angeles, California 90012. All mandatory chambers copies shall be hand delivered to the mailbox for this Court outside the Clerk’s Office, which is located on the 4th floor of the 1st Street Courthouse. The location for filing civil documents in paper format exempted from electronic filing and for viewing case files and other records services remains at the United States Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Room G-8, Los Angeles, California 90012. The location for filing criminal documents in paper format exempted from electronic filing remains at Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Room 178, Los Angeles, California 90012. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (rrp) TEXT ONLY ENTRY

Doc.
No.
Dates Description
32
Filed & Entered:   12/09/2016
Docket Text Generic Text Only Entry

Update December 7, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – As I recall I twice asked the district court in my California Open Carry lawsuit for an extension of time but was denied.  My briefs were typically due within 7/14 days.  In the early days of my lawsuit, before I opened a PACER account, I typically had only a day or two to write my briefs and hand deliver them to the courthouse because I wasn’t allowed to electronically file my documents and I had to wait to receive the filings of the state and the court by mail which ate into the time I had within which to file my briefs.  The district court, on the other hand gave the state extensions of time to file its documents without it even asking. Here, the NRA/CRPA gets a six week extension of time to file its memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the motions to dismiss.

That said, the brief in opposition to the motions to dismiss is frivolous.  The NRA lawyer, Chuck Michel, continues to argue that concealed carry is a Second Amendment right and has the gall to cite the en banc Peruta v. San Diego decision in support of his claim.  Amusingly, he tacitly admits that his Complaint has not stated a valid Open Carry claim and suggests that he would be able to state a valid Open Carry claim during the discovery phase.

If he is unable to state a valid Open Carry claim now he had better hope that his clients are well versed in what to say and what not to say during their depositions and he better pray that the state’s attorney is dumb enough to ask the questions which would allow them to state a valid Open Carry claim.  Regardless, you can read the NRA/CRPA brief in opposition here, at this link.

 Opposition to Motions to Dismiss

Update October 31, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – Nothing new.  Given that there will not be any significant movement in this case until after the scheduling conference/motion to dismiss hearing scheduled for February 13, 2017, this is probably my last update on this case until after the hearing next year.

Update October 19, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – Nothing new.

Update October 18, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – It appears that Judge Kronstadt is going to kill a couple of birds with one stone.  The scheduling conference is set for the same day as the hearing on the motion to dismiss.  

Full docket text for document 29:
ORDER SETTING RULE 16(b) 26(f) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge John A. Kronstadt. Report due by 2/3/2017., Scheduling Conference set for 2/13/2017 at 08:30 AM. (SEE ORDER FOR SPECIFICS) (bp)

Full docket text for document 30:
Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Opposition and Reply regarding Defendant Sheriff James McDonnell’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Michelle Flanagan, Samuel Golden, Dominic Nardone, Jacob Perkio, The California Rifle and Pistol Association.(Michel, Carl)

Update October 14, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – And I was right, Los Angeles County Sheriff McDonnell filed a motion to dismiss on October 14, 2016.

27 – Sheriff Mcdonnells Motion to Dismiss

Update October 13, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – Attorney General Harris has given the NRA an extension until December 1, 2016 within which it must file its opposition to the AG’s motion to dismiss.  The state’s attorney representing Harris is the same one representing AG Harris and Governor Brown in my California Open Carry lawsuit.  Not only was I never given an extension to file, despite asking the court, the district court routinely gave the state’s attorney extensions of time to file his briefs without his even asking for an extension.

Most of my briefs were due within one week.  Less when you take into consideration that I wasn’t allowed to file electronically.

On the bright side, it is now obvious that the NRA is slow-walking this case.

Update October 7, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – I was right, Harris filed a motion to dismiss on October 7, 2016.  It is doubtful that there will actually be a hearing on the motion to dismiss by AG Harris but if there is to be one then it is currently scheduled for February 13, 2017. Also, the judge gets 120 days to decide on the motion.  If the motion to dismiss is granted then the NRA must file a new Complaint if it wishes to proceed.  In the unlikely case that the motion to dismiss is denied, the AG will have 21 days to file her Answer at which point the case will just be getting started.  Some people hope that this case will be able to leap frog my California Open Carry appeal but then these are the same people who believe they have a right to carry concealed weapons under the Second Amendment.

24 – Motion to Dismiss by Harris

24-1 MPA in support of MTD by Harris

Update September 30, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – Some new activity.

Full docket text for document 20:
NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123), [18], Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123), [17], Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123), [16]. The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (ak)

Doc.
No.
Dates Description
23
Filed & Entered:   09/27/2016
Docket Text Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)
22
Filed & Entered:   09/20/2016
Docket Text Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)
21
Filed & Entered:   09/16/2016
Docket Text Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)
20
Filed & Entered:   09/14/2016
Docket Text Notice of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G-112A)

Update September 13, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – The NRA gave Los Angeles County Sheriff James McDonnell an extension of time to file his response.  His response to the Complaint is now due on October 14, 2016.

Full docket text for document 19:
STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Respond to Initial Complaint, STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to James McDonnell answer now due 10/14/2016, re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),, [1] filed by Defendant James McDonnell.(Choi, Lana)

Full docket text for document 18:
Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Lana Lee Choi counsel for Defendant James McDonnell. Adding Jennifer A.D. Lehman as counsel of record for Sheriff James McDonnell for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Sheriff James McDonnell. (Choi, Lana)

Full docket text for document 17:
Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Lana Lee Choi counsel for Defendant James McDonnell. Adding Alexandra Zuiderweg as counsel of record for Sheriff James McDonnell for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Sheriff James McDonnell. (Choi, Lana)

Full docket text for document 16:
Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Lana Lee Choi counsel for Defendant James McDonnell. Adding Lana Choi as counsel of record for Sheriff James McDonnell for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Sheriff James McDonnell. (Attorney Lana Lee Choi added to party James McDonnell(pty:dft))(Choi, Lana)

Update September 9, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – The NRA gave Attorney General Harris an additional 30 days to file her response which is now due on October 7, 2016.  I am greatly amused to see that AG Harris’ attorney is the same attorney up against me in my California Open Carry lawsuit (Jonathan Eisenberg).

Update August 31, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – Nothing new.

Update August 23, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – CRPA President Chuck Michel filed a proof of service against Attorney General Harris (Dkt #12).  He “served” the Attorney General by mail.  An interesting thing is, parties to a lawsuit are not allowed to serve the initial Complaint on a defendant.  I guess he doesn’t consider himself to be a party to the lawsuit.

Update August 19, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – This is hilarious.  NRA lawyer Chuck Michel has been slapped with his first notice of deficiency and that notice has to do with his very first filing, his Complaint.  Also, District Court judge John A. Kronstadt has been assigned to this case.  Kronstadt was appointed by Obama and he has already shot down Birdt v. Beck at al.  A curious thing is that judges are supposed to be randomly assigned to cases and yet every Second Amendment case I am aware of which was filed in this district has been assigned to one of three district court judges.  Given the thousands of cases filed in this district each year, the odds of the Second Amendment cases being assigned to the same judges is very, very small.

John A. Kronstadt

John A. Kronstadt

Full docket text for document 9:
NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), [1]. The following error(s) was found: No Notice of Interested Parties has been filed. A Notice of Interested Parties must be filed with every partys first appearance. See Local Rule 7.1-1. Counsel must file a Notice of Interested Parties immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 83-7. (ghap)

Update August 17, 2016 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – This page created.

 




2:16-cv-06164-JAK-AS Michelle Flanagan et al v. Kamala Harris et al
John A. Kronstadt, presiding
Alka Sagar, referral
Date filed: 08/17/2016
Date of last filing: 11/13/2017

History

 

Doc.
No.
Dates Description
74
Filed & Entered:   11/13/2017
Docket Text Supplement(Motion related)
75
Filed & Entered:   11/13/2017
Docket Text Supplement(Motion related)
69
Filed & Entered:   11/09/2017
Docket Text Motion Related Document
70
Filed & Entered:   11/09/2017
Docket Text Notice of Lodging
71
Filed & Entered:   11/09/2017
Docket Text Notice of Lodging
72
Filed & Entered:   11/09/2017
Docket Text Errata
73
Filed & Entered:   11/09/2017
Docket Text Notice of Lodging
67
Filed & Entered:   11/06/2017
Docket Text Text Only Scheduling Notice
68
Filed: 11/06/2017
Entered: 11/07/2017
Docket Text Order on Motion for Summary Judgment
63
Filed & Entered:   10/16/2017
Docket Text Reply (Motion related)
64
Filed & Entered:   10/16/2017
Docket Text Request for Judicial Notice
65
Filed & Entered:   10/16/2017
Docket Text Reply (Motion related)
66
Filed & Entered:   10/16/2017
Docket Text Objection/Opposition (Motion related)
61
Filed & Entered:   10/13/2017
Docket Text Objection/Opposition (Motion related)
62
Filed & Entered:   10/13/2017
Docket Text Notice (Other)
60
Filed & Entered:   10/03/2017
Docket Text Amendment (Motion related)
55
Filed & Entered:   10/02/2017
Docket Text MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motion
56
Filed & Entered:   10/02/2017
Docket Text Objection/Opposition (Motion related)
57
Filed & Entered:   10/02/2017
Docket Text MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motion
58
Filed & Entered:   10/02/2017
Docket Text Notice of Lodging
59
Filed & Entered:   10/02/2017
Docket Text Objection/Opposition (Motion related)
54
Filed & Entered:   09/18/2017
Docket Text Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief
53
Filed & Entered:   09/15/2017
Docket Text Striking Electronically Filed Documents (G-106)
52
Filed & Entered:   09/13/2017
Docket Text Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G-112A) – optional html form
45
Filed & Entered:   09/11/2017
Docket Text Motion for Summary Judgment
46
Filed & Entered:   09/11/2017
Docket Text Statement (Motion related)
47
Filed & Entered:   09/11/2017
Docket Text Notice of Lodging
48
Filed & Entered:   09/11/2017
Docket Text Motion for Summary Judgment
49
Filed & Entered:   09/11/2017
Docket Text Request for Judicial Notice
50
Filed & Entered:   09/11/2017
Docket Text Statement (Motion related)
51
Filed & Entered:   09/11/2017
Docket Text Motion Related Document
44
Filed: 07/31/2017
Entered: 08/01/2017
Docket Text Order
43
Filed & Entered:   07/21/2017
Docket Text Stipulation to Extend Discovery Cut-Off Date
41
Filed & Entered:   04/26/2017
Docket Text Transcript (CV)
42
Filed & Entered:   04/26/2017
Docket Text Notice of Filing Transcript
40
Filed & Entered:   03/08/2017
Docket Text Answer to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening)
39
Filed: 02/23/2017
Entered: 02/24/2017
Docket Text Order on Motion to Dismiss Case
38
Filed: 02/13/2017
Entered: 02/14/2017
Docket Text Order on Motion to Dismiss Case
36
Filed & Entered:   02/08/2017
Docket Text Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)
37
Filed & Entered:   02/08/2017
Docket Text Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)
35
Filed & Entered:   02/02/2017
Docket Text Report
33
Filed & Entered:   01/09/2017
Docket Text Reply (Motion related)
34
Filed & Entered:   01/09/2017
Docket Text Reply (Motion related)
32
Filed & Entered:   12/09/2016
Docket Text Generic Text Only Entry
31
Filed & Entered:   12/01/2016
Docket Text MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motion
30
Filed & Entered:   10/17/2016
Docket Text Stipulation for Extension of Time to File
29
Filed & Entered:   10/15/2016
Docket Text Order
27
Filed & Entered:   10/14/2016
Terminated: 02/23/2017
Docket Text Motion to Dismiss Case
28
Filed & Entered:   10/14/2016
Docket Text Proof of Service (subsequent documents)
26
Filed & Entered:   10/13/2016
Docket Text Stipulation for Extension of Time to File
24
Filed & Entered:   10/07/2016
Terminated: 02/23/2017
Docket Text Motion to Dismiss Case
25
Filed & Entered:   10/07/2016
Docket Text Proof of Service (subsequent documents)
23
Filed & Entered:   09/27/2016
Docket Text Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)
22
Filed & Entered:   09/20/2016
Docket Text Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)
21
Filed & Entered:   09/16/2016
Docket Text Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)
20
Filed & Entered:   09/14/2016
Docket Text Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G-112A) – optional html form
16
Filed & Entered:   09/13/2016
Docket Text Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)
17
Filed & Entered:   09/13/2016
Docket Text Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)
18
Filed & Entered:   09/13/2016
Docket Text Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)
19
Filed & Entered:   09/13/2016
Docket Text Stipulation for Extension of Time to File
15
Filed & Entered:   09/08/2016
Docket Text Stipulation Extending Time to Answer (30 days or less)
13
Filed & Entered:   09/06/2016
Docket Text Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days)
14
Filed & Entered:   09/06/2016
Docket Text Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days)
11
Filed & Entered:   08/22/2016
Docket Text Order
12
Filed & Entered:   08/22/2016
Docket Text Proof of Service (subsequent documents)
1
Filed & Entered:   08/17/2016
Docket Text Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening)
2
Filed & Entered:   08/17/2016
Docket Text Summons Request
3
Filed & Entered:   08/17/2016
Docket Text Summons Request
4
Filed & Entered:   08/17/2016
Docket Text Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71)
5
Filed & Entered:   08/17/2016
Docket Text Notice of Assignment to United States Judges(CV-18) – optional html form
6
Filed & Entered:   08/17/2016
Docket Text Notice to Parties of Court-Directed ADR Program (ADR-8) – optional html form
7
Filed & Entered:   08/17/2016
Docket Text Summons Issued (Attorney Civil Case Opening)
8
Filed & Entered:   08/17/2016
Docket Text Summons Issued (Attorney Civil Case Opening)
9
Filed & Entered:   08/17/2016
Docket Text Deficiency in Attorney Case Opening – optional html form
10
Filed & Entered:   08/17/2016
Docket Text Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties

 

Share