22 June 2014 Podcast

The June 22, 2014 podcast is up. Special thanks to Mr. Charles Cotton of the Texas Firearms Coalition and National Rifle Association Board of Directors for joining us in studio today. We would also like to thank for Mr. Terry Holcomb and CJ Grisham for calling into today’s discussion on open carry.

11 thoughts on “22 June 2014 Podcast

  1. I had never even heard of TSRA until just a few months ago and had no idea that the NRA was involved in the open carry issue in Texas, and I’m a lifetime member of the NRA. Mr. Gotten keeps stating that these groups know how to get things done in Texas, but it doesn’t appear that a whole lot is happening!

    Joe Public has a lot that we can do, such as writing and calling our representatives and letting them know that we vote. None of the gorillas, as Charles put it have brought this discussion to the general public like OCT and the other 3 groups that are out there marching.

    Charles Cotten and the TSRA have been on other programs where they have just blasted OCT and they keep saying “just stay out of our way because we know how to get things done”. If I’m not mistaken, didn’t he say that open carry isn’t going to be discussed in the 2015 congress? If so, maybe its time for new people to talk to congress and a lot of voters to contact their representatives and tell them it had better be on the floor and voted on in 2015 or they may not be back for the next session!

  2. I apologize for the misspellings of Mr. Cotton’s name in my earlier post.

    I don’t understand why MDA and the media are allowed to control the actions of those who are fighting for our God given rights when it comes to the 2A. The hosts of the show keep stating that that the actions of OCT and other like groups are playing right into the hands of MDA and the liberal media, like they are so afraid of MDA.

    I believe that you guys need to put on your man pants and defend and fight for the rights that we have under the constitution and forget about MDA, the media and Bloomberg. These groups are always going to lie, whine and whatever else they have to do to try and take away our rights as law abiding citizens. So you have an audience and you can help inform the general public on gun related actions and issues and stop worrying about the anti-gun people. Maybe someone can slap a defamation suit against MDA when they lie about things that have happened and make them think twice before they make statements about gun rights groups?

    Having an opportunity to discuss what is really going on and gathering the support of real grass roots organizations is much more important than worrying about what MDA will say about the issue.

  3. It is not about being afraid or putting “on your man parts”. It is about “perception is reality.” If you want to change the way people think, you have to change their perception of you (or your cause).

    I have been around guns all my life. I have no problem with Open Carry or Concealed Carry. If you want to carry legally with either method then I say “go for it”.

    I will say this…
    If I saw people walk in at a restaurant carrying weapons in front on single point slings, magazines inserted, bolts home I would go into “high alert status” until I could get out of there. This is not because I am afraid of guns, but I live in this world where crazy people do crazy things. If I was walking up to the restaurant and looked in and saw that situation I would turn around and walk away. Before any says it I will… I am judging people based on what I see, but at that time that is all the information I have about these people. All of that said if I say the same people with weapons slung over shoulder, magazines removed and flag safeties in I would think “What’s going on, that is some crazy stuff”. However, while still being alerted, I would not feel uncomfortable. I like most humans try to avoid situations that I think are not in my best interest. Also like most humans I will make judgement calls based on dress and mannerisms.

    I have heard several people say that “Those are people posing for pictures, we do not carry that way.” To that I say: “Don’t give the other side ammunition.” If someone wants to take a picture of you then let them take a picture that reflects the way you look not the way they want you to look. If you want to win people to your cause you have to do it “better than anyone else”. You will never win over the far left or right in a debate. In order to win you have to show the people in the middle that you are a reasonable person. You have to change (or reinforce) their perception and give them NO reason to doubt you or your intentions.

    Lastly some will say “We should never compromise”. I will say “Compromise is the only way a democracy or republic works.” If you do not want to compromise then you really want a dictatorship, because dictators never have to compromise…

    –Britt

  4. The National Rifle Association opposes Open Carry. The NRA endorsed California’s 1967 ban on Loaded Open Carry – The Black Panther Loaded Open Carry ban. Since 2010, the NRA has funded the Peruta v. San Diego concealed carry lawsuit to which the NRA state organization is a Plaintiff. The NRA argument in the Peruta case is to uphold the 1967 Loaded Open Carry ban and to uphold California’s Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995.

    I am the Plaintiff in the Federal lawsuit which seeks to overturn California’s 1967 Loaded Open Carry ban as well as the two recently enacted bans on Unloaded Open Carry. The case is Nichols v. Brown and it is now on appeal before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    In May of 2011 I began raising funds for my lawsuit (the case was filed in November of 2011). Six months before I filed my case the NRA sent out an email to all of its Members Councils in California opposing my lawsuit. In August of 2013 I was appealing the denial of my motion for a preliminary injunction when the NRA filed a motion opposing my preliminary injunction.

    Anyone who believes that the NRA supports Open Carry is a Kool-Aid drinking fool.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

    • The NRA has supported open-carry legislation in several states, including Texas. NRA testified in favor of open-carry during the 2013 Texas Legislative Session and in the Interim Study held in April of this year. The NRA added open-carry to it’s candidate questionnaire and we are doing everything we routinely do in the off-season to promote open-carry in the 2015 Texas Legislative Session.

      Unless you have recently hired an attorney, you are representing yourself and, unless you are an attorney, that’s almost always a loosing battle. Risking not only your Second Amendment rights but those of everyone in California and potentially throughout the entire 9th Circuit is not what most gun owners would call responsible. The NRA is backing Peruta and we are winning. That’s the difference that experience, proper planning, and good legal tactics can do.

      Charles Cotton

      • Charles L. Cotton, the fact remains that the NRA’s argument in the Pertua case is to uphold California’s 1967 ban on Loaded Open Carry – the Black Panther Gun Ban which the NRA helped write and endorsed in 1967. In the Peruta case the NRA also “warned” the court that if they did not get their “shall-issue” concealed carry permits then it would also entail the overturning of California’s Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995, the NRA said overturning the GFSZ would be “drastic.”

        The NRA is lying to the public when it says it has always been on the forefront of supporting Open Carry and the NRA is lying when it says it opposes Gun Free School Zones. The NRA supports both where it does the most damage, in Federal Court.

        There is no right to carry a concealed weapon according to the US Supreme Court decision in Heller. The Heller Court said that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution. The attorney for Peruta, Chuck Michel, laments the fact that the odds are Peruta will be reversed en banc and then exclaims when that happens the US Supreme Court must then hear his appeal. You can watch it here -> http://youtu.be/UaxxuyBvB-M

        Of course there is no reason why the US Supreme Court should get involved when the Peruta decision is overturned by an en banc panel of judges later this year or next. There have been three Supreme Court decisions which said that concealed carry falls outside the scope of the Second Amendment, two of those decisions were published relatively recently in 2008 and 2010.

        Why should the Supreme Court take a case just to repeat what it has been saying for over 100 years? For that matter, state courts as well have been saying that there is no right to carry a concealed weapon for nearly 200 years, except for one case from 1822 Kentucky which was later overturned. Not just overturned, Kentucky amended its state Constitution in 1850 to say that concealed carry can be banned.

        In just this past year the US Supreme Court has turned down four appeals from the two largest so called gun-rights groups (NRA and Second Amendment Foundation) which sought to compel states to issue permits for the carrying of concealed handguns in public. This number does not include the countless petitions brought by prisoners seeking to overturn their convictions for carrying concealed weapons the High Court turned has down since the 2008 Heller decision.

        Like it or not, the US Supreme Court has decided that the carrying of concealed weapons falls outside the scope of the Second Amendment and that the carrying of firearms openly is the right guaranteed by the Constitution.

        The NRA has actively interfered and obstructed my Open Carry lawsuit. Six months before I even filed the case the NRA sent out an email to all of its California NRA Members Councils members opposing my lawsuit. The NRA successfully filed a motion to stay the appeal of my preliminary injunction.

        By the way, the 1967 Black Panther Loaded Open Carry ban was copied and pasted from an Illinois ban enacted in 1962. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the Illinois ban. An often overlooked line from that decision by Judge Posner is that he wrote that Illinois could require handguns to be openly carried as per the Heller decision. Judge Posner did not say that Illinois could choose to require that handguns be carried concealed or that Illinois could choose between concealed and Open Carry.

        If I lose on appeal then there is a split between every single Federal Circuit and every single state court of appeals decision which has had a concealed carry case come before it. The US Supreme Court has turned down every single concealed carry cert petition.

        For two and a half years I have been litigating my case, pro se. The magistrate judge and the district court judge threw everything they had at me. In the end, the district court concluded that when it comes to firearms there is no Second or Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment right to carry even an unloaded flintlock on one’s front porch.

        The court also held that minorities are prohibited from bringing a Civil rights lawsuit against a racially motivated criminal statute until the criminal statutes have been enforced against them. Pursuant to the Younger Abstention, that means minorities are denied access to the Federal Civil Courts if the district court judge’s decision in my case is upheld by the 9th Circuit.

        There will be lots of reasons unrelated to the Second Amendment for the US Supreme Court to grant cert in my case should I lose before the 9th. There is no reason for SCOTUS to grant cert in the Peruta case.

        Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don’t carry a purse.

        “[A] right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 – Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

        “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 – Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.

        Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
        http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

        • Why didn’t you get an attorney to represent you? No one would do it, right?

          You want to rewrite history and I’m not going to take up more space on this website to point out all of your false allegations. You are welcome to come to the TexasCHLforum.com and present your arguments, but beware, we’re going to require proof. You are long on allegations and short on proof. You and I know why.

          Charles Cotton

          • Proof of what? That the NRA argued to uphold the California Loaded Open Carry ban and defended gun free school zones in the Peruta concealed carry case? Try reading the appellant opening brief in Peruta -> http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-Opening-Brief.pdf

            Penal Code section 12031 is the 1967 Black Panther Loaded Open Carry ban (since renumbered). Penal Code section 626.9 is the California Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995. The NRA argues in support of both in the brief.

            Or are you questioning the fact that the NRA endorsed the 1967 Loaded Open Carry ban in 1967?

            Or are you questioning the fact that the NRA sent out an email to all of its Member Councils in California opposing my lawsuit?

            Or are you questioning the fact that the NRA filed a motion in my preliminary injunction appeal asking the court to stay my appeal?

            I thought you were a lawyer? Isn’t the first rule never to ask a question you don’t already know the answer to?

            My lawsuit has always argued that the US Supreme Court Heller decision meant exactly what it said, nothing more and nothing less. You don’t like the Heller decision because you carry a concealed handgun and not only did SCOTUS tell you that concealed carry is not a right, SCOTUS told you concealed carry is immoral.

            “[A] right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 – Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

            I don’t have a lawyer because there aren’t any competent Second Amendment Civil Rights attorneys for hire. All of the so called gun-rights attorneys are too busy losing concealed carry lawsuits.

            FYI, even the Peruta Court said that there is no right to carry a concealed weapon.

            “To be clear, we are not holding that the Second Amendment requires the states to permit concealed carry. ” Peruta v. County of San Diego, slip op. No. 10-56971 (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2014) at pg 61.

            Had you bothered to read the Peruta decision and the briefs in my Open Carry lawsuit you would have noticed that the Peruta decision copied and pasted many of my arguments. Where the Peruta Court went off the rails is where it decided that, contrary to Heller, it was allowed to disregard Heller’s reading of Nunn v. State and State v. Chandler and substitute something which is not a right (concealed carry) for the fundamental right (Open Carry). You’ll notice that nowhere in the Peruta decision did the Court cite a precedent which allows it to do so. There is, of course, a mountain of precedents saying that the Peruta Court was not allowed to do so.

            I am not going to join your little cultist concealed carry forum. I will leave you with this and if you are any kind of lawyer who has even a rudimentary knowledge of Civil Rights litigation, you will understand why there are many reasons why Peruta’s own lawyer thinks he is going to lose. Reasons such as this:

            In my motion for partial summary judgment, it is an undisputed fact (SUF) that concealed carry imposes a substantial burden on my ability to defend myself even if I had a concealed carry permit which the County will not issue.

            “Substantial Burden” + “Fundamental Right” = “Strict Scrutiny”

            Strict scrutiny means I win.

            I was grilled for nearly a day by the Attorney General’s lawyer during my deposition. I explained to her lawyer how and why concealed carry is only an advantage to criminals and to immoral cowards and I explained how and why concealed carry substantially burdens my ability to defend myself. I explained how and why concealed carry presents a danger to public safety and why Open Carry does not. In fact, even a recent holding of a California appellate court reiterated what California courts had been saying since the 19th century, that concealed carry is a danger to public safety and in the interests of public safety, arms must be openly carried.

            When MSJ time rolled around, the Attorney General did not contest either my SUF or declarations that concealed carry substantially burdens my ability to defend myself or that concealed carry is to the Second Amendment what pornography is to the First Amendment.

            Cases such as mine are won or lost on appeal. Everything I need to win on appeal is in the trial court record including the procedural errors made by the trial court such as allowing the AG to submit documents external to the record after she filed her Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Doing so converted the AG’s MJP into a MSJ which in turn required the district court judge to hold a hearing, which he did not.

            But I’m not going to waste any more time on you. You are one of these lawyers who reads the Heller Court’s contempt for concealed carry as an endorsement of concealed carry.

  5. Pingback: The Open Carry Report | OCR 018: Basics to lobby as well as Calling out OCT and CJ Grisham

  6. Pingback: The Open Carry Report | 026: A few problems with Open Carry Texas.

  7. Pingback: OCR 018: Basics to lobby as well as Calling out OCT and CJ Grisham | Gun Rights In Texas

Leave a Reply