This article is pretty good, explains why the copy past lawyer is wrong on a few of their legal opinions
https://www.crpa.org/crpa-news/crpanews-alert-fighting-for-your-right-to-carry-in-ca/
This is a wonderful example of why stupid people, evil people, and stupidly evil people should not be allowed anywhere near a weapon. If you believe what the NRA tells the public is more important than what the NRA tells Federal judges then that makes you stupid. If you know that the only thing that matters is what the NRA lawyers tell the judges but nonetheless propagate NRA lies then that makes you evil. If you don't know and don't care then that makes you both stupid and evil.
At the same time the NRA told the public in this video that it supports Open Carry, its NRA lawyers were in the 9th circuit court of appeals telling the court that it is constitutional to ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry. ->
NRA lawyer (Paul Clement) says that states can ban Open Carry (en banc oral argument, Peruta v. San Diego) ->
Transcript of Flanagan v. Harris (now Becerra) hearing on motion to dismiss:
(The NRA argues that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry)
NRA lawyer Sean Brady:
"IF THE SHERIFF WERE TO ISSUE CONCEALED-WEAPON PERMITS, AS HE'S ALLOWED TO DO, THEN PLAINTIFFS WOULD BE MADE WHOLE, CORRECT. THEY WOULD -- IN OTHER WORDS, IF THEY HAD PERMITS, THEY WERE COMING TO YOUR HONOR SAYING, "NO, WE WANT TO OPEN-CARRY," YOUR HONOR WOULD, I BELIEVE, BE ABLE TO SAY, "NO, YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE INTACT. YOU HAVE A CONCEALED-WEAPON PERMIT."
Judge Kronstadt:
"I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. I DON'T THINK I AGREE WITH YOU."
Now lawyers are not limited to the exact argument they made in the district court but they are prevented from raising new claims on appeal.
Is there a claim filed in the plaintiffs' operative complaint in which any of the plaintiffs seeks to openly carry a firearm? No. Okay then, defects in a Complaint can be corrected via a Declaration. Is there any Declaration filed in the Flanagan case in which any of the plaintiffs articulates a concrete plan to violate any California Open Carry ban, anywhere? No. Okay, is there any Declaration filed in the Flanagan case in which any of the plaintiffs articulates any plan to violate any California Open Carry ban. No.
Do any of the plaintiffs seek a license to openly carry a handgun? No. Do any of the plaintiffs challenge the population prohibitions and residency limitations on California Handgun Open Carry permits? No.
But they did seek an injunction against the section of California law which allows for the issuance of licenses to openly carry firearms. Fortunately, instead of filing a motion for partial summary judgment, the Flanagan plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment which did not seek to enjoin that section of the law.
A person can argue day and night that a law is unconstitutional without there being a flaw in the argument but if the plaintiffs have not articulated a concrete plan to violate the law then they do not have standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to that law. The NRA has not challenged California's Open Carry bans in the district court in Flanagan, and the NRA did not in Peruta.
And, of course, 9th circuit procedural law says that claims not raised again on appeal and not distinctly argued in the "body" (the argument section) of the opening brief are forfeited on appeal.
Here is a link to the opening brief in Flanagan v. Becerra ->
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Flanagan-v.-Becerra_Appellants-Opening-Brief_16.pdfNotwithstanding that 9th circuit procedural law says that argument made in footnotes is to be excluded from consideration, the Flanagan Appellants had this to say in a footnote:
"To be clear, Appellants would be satisfied with a remedy that compels the State or the Sheriff to give Appellants and other otherwise-qualified citizens Carry Licenses, but leaves the State or the Sheriff free to choose between open
or concealed carry. See, e.g., Moore, 702 F.3d at 942. Appellants have challenged California’s open carry laws, its concealed carry laws, and the Sheriff’s good cause policy not because they insist that every one of these provisions must be invalidated, but to ensure that there is no confusion about the scope of their constitutional challenge, and that the courts have available to them every possible avenue for remedying the injury Appellants have suffered. "
The Argument Section of the brief begins on page 17 and ends on page page 46.
Feel free to copy and paste those paragraphs from the opening brief where the plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of, and seek prospective injunctive and/or declaratory relief against: California Penal Code sections 25850 (ban on carrying loaded firearms in public), 26350 (ban on carrying unloaded handguns in public), 26400 (ban on openly carrying unloaded long guns in public), 26150/26155(b)(2) (ban on issuing handgun Open Carry licenses in counties with 200,000 or more people and restricting those licenses to the county of issuance).
The only thing the Flanagan plaintiffs can point to is that they were denied concealed carry permits. While it is true that under 9th circuit procedural law, the denial of a state license confers standing, it is also true under Peruta v. San Diego en banc there is no Article III standing to challenge the denial of the concealed carry permit under the Second Amendment.
Given that the plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge any California Open Carry ban, even if they wanted to, which they don't, and given they have foreclosed any possibility for a remand back to the district court to amend their complaint to challenge California's Open Carry bans, all that is left is yet another failed concealed carry appeal to be denied cert by SCOTUS.