Charles Nichols' podcasts are now on SoundCloud.

Here is his new one (#3) today, in which he explains how and why a TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction could be filed in any jurisdiction in the Ninth Circuit having any sort of (de facto) ban on public open carry for self-defense under the currently precedent Young v Hawaii published decision. I hope you will all write the organizations at the addresses below and ask them the question (why haven't they filed for TRO/PI), and have better luck than I did getting an answer. Please let us know what they tell you. 

https://soundcloud.com/user-758103830/podcast-3-the-gun-rights-groups-hate-open-carry-08242018?utm_source=soundcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=facebook

Episode #3 – 08/24/2018 – The so called Gun rights Groups Hate Open Carry

Contact the so-called gun-rights groups and ask them why they didn't file for a TRO-Preliminary Injunction against California's and Hawaii's Open Carry bans after the Young v. Hawaii decision was published on July 24, 2018?

And ask them why they filed lawsuits seeking to uphold California's Open Carry bans?

NRA - contact.nra.org/contact-us.aspx
CRPA (NRA State Organization) - www.crpa.org/contact-us/
Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) - www.saf.org/contact-us-2/
The CalGuns Foundation - www.calgunsfoundation.org/con...

My Podcasts page at my website - blog.californiarighttocarry.org

Charles Nichols 8-minute podcast on Young v Hawaii, including how it has been binding precedent since the day it was published and still no attorney has filed for a TRO/Preliminary Injunction that would force the filed-against attorneys general of any state in the Ninth Circuit to conform to the open carry requirement of the decision.

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=8372

I've written SAF, NRA, and GOA asking why they have not filed such actions. Only got a response from SAF, which hinted, after first wrongly claiming that Young has been appealed en banc, that they have some "double secret probation" strategy in the works. Sure they do. Let me guess. Amicus brief? They won't tell me. Since all those "gun rights organizations" oppose open carry (see their actual filings and oral arguments in Peruta and Richards), maybe they'll file an amicus for the defense?

From an unverified third party: "The response I received from Andrew [sic] Gottlieb at SAF - "A TRO would be thrown out by a judge. We are filing an amicus brief for that case.""

You mean like all the judges up through SCOTUS "threw out" SAF's concealed carry Richards v. Prieto? IF there is a petition for en banc, AND it is granted, THEN, given the history of SAF lawsuits disparaging open carry I hope Young counsel is allowed to read the amicus before assenting to it's submission. SAF might not be doing open carry any favors. I wouldn't be surprised. And the NRA? They helped legislators write California's open carry ban, so I can only imagine their amicus "help".

Charles Nichols' podcasts are now on SoundCloud.

Here is his new one (#3) today, in which he explains how and why a TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction could be filed in any jurisdiction in the Ninth Circuit having any sort of (de facto) ban on public open carry for self-defense under the currently precedent Young v Hawaii published decision. I hope you will all write the organizations at the addresses below and ask them the question (why haven't they filed for TRO/PI), and have better luck than I did getting an answer. Please let us know what they tell you. 

https://soundcloud.com/user-758103830/podcast-3-the-gun-rights-groups-hate-open-carry-08242018?utm_source=soundcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=facebook

Episode #3 – 08/24/2018 – The so called Gun rights Groups Hate Open Carry

Contact the so-called gun-rights groups and ask them why they didn't file for a TRO-Preliminary Injunction against California's and Hawaii's Open Carry bans after the Young v. Hawaii decision was published on July 24, 2018?

And ask them why they filed lawsuits seeking to uphold California's Open Carry bans?

NRA - contact.nra.org/contact-us.aspx
CRPA (NRA State Organization) - www.crpa.org/contact-us/
Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) - www.saf.org/contact-us-2/
The CalGuns Foundation - www.calgunsfoundation.org/con...

My Podcasts page at my website - blog.californiarighttocarry.org

Ever though about filing the TRO or PI yourself ?

Ever though about filing the TRO or PI yourself ?

Sure. Over the past several years I've thought of filing dozens of lawsuits on various issues (Mostly when my OIPA requests for documents are denied or ignored even on appeal, and the only remaining option is litigation. The ACLU has refused to help, and Judicial Watch has other fish to fry.) There are two problems. 1. I am not a lawyer. The chances of me being successful in navigating the many "traps" for those of little to no knowledge of the intricacies of state and federal court rules and procedures are slim and none. 2. It costs $400 to file for the TRO, which is relatively simple, but wouldn't last for more than, at most 10-14 days. The PI would last much longer, but is also a more complex filing, which amount to mine fields for someone with no legal system knowledge. If one judge were to deny the request it can be "shopped around" to other judges, but it costs $400 each time (is my understanding). That is chump change to the national "gun rights organizations", whereas to me, unfortunately, it's money I don't have to gamble with. Remember, SAF hired Gura [EDIT: My mistake, it was the NRA that hired Clement] at about $2,000 an hour to litigate Peruta, likely flew him first class to California for the orals and likely had him staying at some kind of quality hotel. And he LOST, BIGLY. They obviously have plenty of money. The $400 or $800 or $1200 or whatever it would be is not the issue. They won't do it for some other reason... and it can't be that "a judge will throw it out"... because that is the result they got from Peruta and many other lost lawsuits where they have tried to argue, against Scalia's very clear words in Heller, that concealed carry is a right.

George Young asked 17 attorneys in Hawaii to take his case, and none would. That's when he committed to spending literally thousands of hours studying law and his pro se cases were still thrown out of court without ever getting an actual hearing/presentation of evidence in a courtroom... but merely dismissed on essentially procedural grounds. Only with the assistance of an attorney was his case able to actually start to get a fair hearing. The deck is completely stacked against any non-lawyer who attempts to enter the realm of the lawyers (which includes the judges of course). It is extremely ironic, or perhaps and indication of the grandiose incompetence of the "national gun rights organizations" that the only three major cases in the Ninth Circuit to win an overturning of ban type laws (now Young, and previously the NMI cases of Radich v. Deleon Guerrero, and Murphy v. Deleon Guerrero) were by pro se individuals, who either plead the cases themselves, or started by themselves and then got pro bono legal aid. I'm just sayin'...

The purpose of getting the TRO/PI would be to then attempt to receive an open carry license in conformance with the Young ruling, which would be in effect, and then upon denial have grounds to sue for not conforming to the precedent in effect. So the TRO/PI is only the first step, and the succeeding steps would be much more complex. Any takers?

I've looked for and asked attorneys for help in the past, and no one wants to volunteer for the pro bono, that's for sure.

Sure. Over the past several years I've thought of filing dozens of lawsuits on various issues (Mostly when my OIPA requests for documents are denied or ignored even on appeal, and the only remaining option is litigation. The ACLU has refused to help, and Judicial Watch has other fish to fry.) There are two problems. 1. I am not a lawyer. The chances of me being successful in navigating the many "traps" for those of little to no knowledge of the intricacies of state and federal court rules and procedures are slim and none. 2. It costs $400 to file for the TRO, which is relatively simple, but wouldn't last for more than, at most 10-14 days. The PI would last much longer, but is also a more complex filing, which amount to mine fields for someone with no legal system knowledge. If one judge were to deny the request it can be "shopped around" to other judges, but it costs $400 each time (is my understanding). That is chump change to the national "gun rights organizations", whereas to me, unfortunately, it's money I don't have to gamble with. Remember, SAF hired Gura [EDIT: My mistake, it was the NRA that hired Clement] at about $2,000 an hour to litigate Peruta, likely flew him first class to California for the orals and likely had him staying at some kind of quality hotel. And he LOST, BIGLY. They obviously have plenty of money. The $400 or $800 or $1200 or whatever it would be is not the issue. They won't do it for some other reason... and it can't be that "a judge will throw it out"... because that is the result they got from Peruta and many other lost lawsuits where they have tried to argue, against Scalia's very clear words in Heller, that concealed carry is a right.

George Young asked 17 attorneys in Hawaii to take his case, and none would. That's when he committed to spending literally thousands of hours studying law and his pro se cases were still thrown out of court without ever getting an actual hearing/presentation of evidence in a courtroom... but merely dismissed on essentially procedural grounds. Only with the assistance of an attorney was his case able to actually start to get a fair hearing. The deck is completely stacked against any non-lawyer who attempts to enter the realm of the lawyers (which includes the judges of course). It is extremely ironic, or perhaps and indication of the grandiose incompetence of the "national gun rights organizations" that the only three major cases in the Ninth Circuit to win an overturning of ban type laws (now Young, and previously the NMI cases of Radich v. Deleon Guerrero, and Murphy v. Deleon Guerrero) were by pro se individuals, who either plead the cases themselves, or started by themselves and then got pro bono legal aid. I'm just sayin'...

The purpose of getting the TRO/PI would be to then attempt to receive an open carry license in conformance with the Young ruling, which would be in effect, and then upon denial have grounds to sue for not conforming to the precedent in effect. So the TRO/PI is only the first step, and the succeeding steps would be much more complex. Any takers?

I've looked for and asked attorneys for help in the past, and no one wants to volunteer for the pro bono, that's for sure.

Just to clarify.  Radich was ligated by attorney David Sigale.  Murphy was done by a pro se person. 

Also Fotoudis v. City of Honolulu 54 F. Supp. 3d 1136 (D. Haw. 2014)  overturned Hawaii's ban on green card holders. and that was litigated by me and Richard Holcomb

Also Andrew Roberts v. City & County of Honolulu removed City and County of Honolulu's restrictions that were put in place after the  Fotoudis case again done by Rick and I.

Charles Nichols' latest podcast, which is primarily about the NRA's Flanagan v Becerra, but touches once again on Young v Hawaii and how the door is still open to a TRO/PI.

https://soundcloud.com/californiaopencarry/podcast-4-the-national-rifle-associations-fake-open-carry-lawsuit-flanagan-v-becerra?utm_source=soundcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=facebook

And speaking of a TRO/PI, and why I don't file for one myself, here is an example of such a filing, as posted by SAF re a suit they have going in California. You can see it's 91 pages long and thus far beyond the scope of what any ordinary non-lawyer citizen would be capable of writing with any hope of success.

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/4636/attachments/original/1534296748/sharp-mpi.pdf?1534296748

I'm taking the liberty of reposting "wolfwood"'s (aka Alan Beck) post this morning to the Young thread on CalGuns so those readers here that don't follow that thread may be fully informed (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=22053175&postcount=565) Motion of state to intervene DENIED, BUT... :

Somewhat interesting order came down

Filed order (DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, RICHARD R. CLIFTON and SANDRA S. IKUTA): The State of Hawaii’s motion to intervene pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b), filed on August 16, 2018, is DENIED as unnecessary. The State of Hawaii is, and remains, a party to this appeal during the pendency of any en banc proceedings, since Young filed a notice of appeal with respect to the district court’s dismissal of his claims against both the State and the County. While we dismissed the appeal against the State, such dismissal is not effective until the mandate issues in this case. See Fed. R. App. P. 41. We sua sponte extend the time for the State of Hawaii to file a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc until September 14, 2018—the current deadline for the County of Hawaii to file any such petition. Judge Clifton dissents from the denial of the unopposed motion to intervene. He would grant it. [10993822] (AF)

Can you break this down in dummy terms?

Can you break this down in dummy terms?

The state of Hawaii is recognized as an official party to the case, and thus may file motions, etc.

The state of Hawaii asked for intervenor status (i.e. they wanted to be an official legal party (can file motions, argue at orals, etc.) to the appeal, which they themselves had declined a role in the original appeal before the three judge panel, where they only filed an amicus brief (which states someone's opinion about the case, but isn't a submission by an official party to the case)). The three judge panel today DENIED granting intervenor status as requested by the state, BUT they denied it on grounds that it was UNNECESSARY because the state was already a party to the case prior to the appeals court proceedings, at the district court level, and they had not requested nor been granted exemption from being a party at that level, and thus the state still has the legal ability to file any legal motions in the current appeal level proceedings.

The state has fired five Washington D.C.-based attorneys just for this case. They have the legal ability to file any motions re the case. They have until September 14 (unless they ask for another extension of time) to file for rehearing or rehearing en banc. If they do file for either of those, and either is granted, the three judge panel decision in favor of Young is vacated pending the outcome of of the rehearing/rehearing en banc, and the window is immediately closed re the filing of a TRO/preliminary injunction, which has been open for 36 days now with no takers. I've read other people claiming to have called attorneys and none will take up the offer to file, even when they are offered payment, and one person has an open forum post saying he will pay the filing fee of $400... and, in case you aren't following the case closely, none of the "gun rights" groups have filed such a motion.

New podcast from Charles Nichols going into the details of the en banc process: https://soundcloud.com/californiaopencarry/podcast-5-why-is-a-decision-reheard-en-banc-in-the-9th-circuit-and-what-happens-if-it-isnt-08282018?utm_source=soundcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=facebook

I was going to apply for an open carry permit and file for an injunction this week but heard it would be too late.

The State is spending big bucks on this case.  Your bucks.  Its going into the millions of dollars if it gets to SCOTUS.  And other states like New York and Maryland want to make sure it doesnt pass.

I was going to apply for an open carry permit and file for an injunction this week but heard it would be too late.

The State is spending big bucks on this case.  Your bucks.  Its going into the millions of dollars if it gets to SCOTUS.  And other states like New York and Maryland want to make sure it doesnt pass.

Ain't that a bitch.  My tax dollars are being spent so I can deny my own right.  That's like paying someone to rob you.

I was going to apply for an open carry permit and file for an injunction this week but heard it would be too late.

The State is spending big bucks on this case.  Your bucks.  Its going into the millions of dollars if it gets to SCOTUS.  And other states like New York and Maryland want to make sure it doesnt pass.

Who'd you hear that from? My understanding is until it's been motioned for AND ACCEPTED for rehearing or rehearing en banc Young is binding precedent in the Ninth and thus amenable to TRO/PI.

File for the TRO/PI immediately. Or tomorrow morning. As soon as it is granted, then go turn in your application for open carry.

Some knowledgeable attorney please chime in.

Punaperson,
Are you saying or is it your understanding that.....

Since Mr Young had filed for open carry and won the case, does that mean he can now oc?  Or does he need to wait?

Who'd you hear that from? My understanding is until it's been motioned for AND ACCEPTED for rehearing or rehearing en banc Young is binding precedent in the Ninth and thus amenable to TRO/PI.

File for the TRO/PI immediately. Or tomorrow morning. As soon as it is granted, then go turn in your application for open carry.

Some knowledgeable attorney please chime in.

Inwould have to apply for the permit, wait to get denied, file the injunction, and get a court date.  But theres only a week or two to do all that.

Punaperson,
Are you saying or is it your understanding that.....

Since Mr Young had filed for open carry and won the case, does that mean he can now oc?  Or does he need to wait?

No. No one, including Mr. Young can lawfully open carry. The "win" is that the law, as applied, and maybe facially, is unconstitutional. His case was remanded back to district court for a trial (unless an en banc motion or sua sponte call is accepted prior to the mandate issuing). In the meantime that ruling is in effect, in the sense that people cannot be categorically denied an open carry license because they are not security guards. Mr. Young (and Mr. Nichols, who's case is stayed pending resolution of Young [See EDIT/CORRECTION below]) are the only two people who cannot file for a TRO/PI.  A person would not even have to be a resident of the Ninth Circuit to file, certainly in Hawaii where Hawaii residency is not a requirement for a license being issued.

We all need to wait... and likely for a long time, even if Young were to win, one way or another, all the way up to SCOTUS. In the meantime, Hawaii will continue to deny us the ability to lawfully exercise our rights without threat of imprisonment. In other words, same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

EDIT/CORRECTION from Mr. Nichols:

My appeal is not stayed.

12 days after I argued my appeal and it was taken under submission for a decision, my panel vacated the submission pending a decision in Young.  That is not a stay.  Also, the duration of the vacated submission was limited.  The vacating of the submission of my appeal for a decision ended on July 24th, the moment the Young v. Hawaii decision was published.

Inwould have to apply for the permit, wait to get denied, file the injunction, and get a court date.  But theres only a week or two to do all that.

"groveler" applied after the decision was rendered and has his denial letter. File in his name. With his permission of course.

We all need to wait... and likely for a long time, even if Young were to win, one way or another, all the way up to SCOTUS. In the meantime, Hawaii will continue to deny us the ability to lawfully exercise our rights without threat of imprisonment. In other words, same as it ever was, same as it ever was

You have reinforced my original belief that it will take 3 to 7 years, except now I am adding, if we are lucky. 

This is an interesting article.  Two law professors say Mr. Young's attorney, Alan Beck, made major mistakes and may have lost the case after winning by saying states can ban open carry for concealed carry.  SCOTUS already said concealed carry is not a right under the 2A. 
https://newsblaze.com/usnews/politics/professors-of-law-say-9th-circuit-open-carry-decision-is-now-the-law-young-v-hawaii-lawyer-says-it-isnt_138979/

A TRO requires the judge to look at 4 factors before issuing a TRO. IF what Charles nicles was saying was true about a PI or TRO, he would be eligible to file for either as the 9th circuits court case (according to him) would be binding. He claims that he cant because he lost his case at the district court. That would not be the case as the lower court has now received new case law/direction that would allow him to refile. Just as Young had to wait to file his case (2 extra times after being denied) in the Hawaii district court.

---

Though considerations may vary from state to state, generally courts consider four factors before issuing an injunction,

Irreparable harm—Courts con­sider the significance of threat to the requesting party if the injunction is not granted.

Balance—Next, courts consider the effects of issuing, or not issuing, the injunction on both parties. While the requesting party may be harmed if the court does not issue the injunction, the other party may be harmed if the court grants the injunction.

Likelihood of success—Courts consider whether or not the party requesting the injunction has a poten­tially successful case—that is, one that is likely to “succeed on the merits” at the end of litigation.

Public interest—Finally, courts consider the injunction’s possible effect on the public interest.

I dont know where you find that Beck has said that CC means they can ban OC and as such he can lose, I dont even see anywhere where the 2 law professors imply that. I cant find any where where Alan has concede that open carry is not a right.
\

What i do see looking at this and other writings by Nichole's is that he has some sort of hardon for Alan.