Search

Articles

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)

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.

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

1AdtAJfcdBkA777fwtVhmCwSwCKGTFrgGz Press@CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

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

Share

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


It has been 256 days days since this case was filed!

It has been 65 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 stands.

The NRA must file its amended complaint within 1 day 23 hours 52 minutes 23 seconds

Flanagan et al v. Harris et al – NRA Open Carry, sort of

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.
  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.

 

Current Schedule

May 1, 2017: Last day to amend or add parties – 1 day 23 hours 52 minutes 23 seconds
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 – 32 days 23 hours 52 minutes 23 seconds
June 1, 2017: Initial Expert Disclosures – 32 days 23 hours 52 minutes 23 seconds
June 30, 2017: Rebuttal Expert Disclosures – 61 days 23 hours 52 minutes 23 seconds
July 28, 2017: Expert Discovery Cut-Off – 89 days 23 hours 52 minutes 23 seconds
August 14, 2017: Last day to file motions (including discovery motions) – 106 days 23 hours 52 minutes 23 seconds
November 6, 2017: Last day to hear motions (including discovery motions) – 190 days 23 hours 52 minutes 23 seconds
December 4, 2017: Anticipated ruling on all motions – 218 days 8 hours 23 minutes 23 seconds
December 11, 2017: Last day to file direct testimony declarations – 225 days 23 hours 52 minutes 23 seconds
December 15, 2017: Last day to file objections to direct testimony declarations – 229 days 23 hours 52 minutes 23 seconds
December 19, 2017: Anticipated ruling on direct testimony declarations/objections – 233 days 23 hours 52 minutes 23 seconds
January 2, 2018: Last day to file a status conference regarding any pretrial issues – 247 days 23 hours 52 minutes 23 seconds
January 8, 2018 at 3:00 p.m.: Final Pretrial Conference – 253 days 14 hours 53 minutes 23 seconds
February 6, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.: Court Trial (est. tbd days) – 282 days 8 hours 53 minutes 23 seconds




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: 04/26/2017

History

 

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
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 Notice of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G-112A)
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