By Charles Nichols
On July 20, 2023, the 9th circuit court of appeals granted my motion which was filed on September 14, 2022, to vacate the court of appeals Order of September 12, 2022, that had remanded my case back to the district court.
I had also asked for and was granted an extension of time in my motion to file a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc.
I now have until August 18, 2023, to file my petition for rehearing/rehearing en banc. I would have preferred a 45 or 60-day extension of time but it is more time than the two weeks I was given by the panel to file a supplemental brief regarding the NYSRPA v. Bruen opinion (the State of California was given four weeks).
This also means, for now, that I do not have to file a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court. Â That is a little bit of a disappointment but the court of appeals granting my motion assured that any writ of mine would be denied because SCOTUS only grants petitions for writs of mandamus when there is no other recourse or when enough justices want to treat the petition for a writ of mandamus as a petition for a writ of certiorari (cert petition).
I have no way of knowing for certain but I suspect that my letter to the three-judge panel assigned to the Baird v. Bonta preliminary injunction appeal played a deciding role.
I mentioned in my letter that the two district court judges assigned to my case on remand said they are not going to comply with the mandate of the court of appeals, and a judge who does not comply with a mandate acts without jurisdiction. Â Add to that the ten months my motion to vacate the mandate and for an extension of time had been pending satisfied the conditions to grant a petition for a writ of mandamus by SCOTUS, which my letter to the Baird v. Bonta panel said I was going to file.
Website – https://CaliforniaOpenCarry.us11.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8983547b55225326e869dd6a1&id=283ae28332&e=7161fca994
GoFundMe – https://CaliforniaOpenCarry.us11.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8983547b55225326e869dd6a1&id=13a598c231&e=7161fca994
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of Citizens Journal
TELL YOUR FRIENDS ABOUT CITIZENS JOURNAL Please keep us publishing – DONATE
Charles Nichols, HIS CASE is what is exciting, not his status report, unless you are interested in deep legal analysis.
His lawsuit challenges California’s race-based criminalization of the open carrying of loaded firearms in public. He has fought this case for twelve years… solo… teaching himself the law; going through Federal Court no less! He has not been stopped! WHEN he prevails, his case will restore our right to ‘keep and bear arms”. This is our 2ndA.
Background: In July 1967 a group of citizens visited the State Capitol. The next day, the Legislature passed legislation criminalizing the open carry of loaded firearms, Gov Ronald Reagan signed it with gusto. The citizens were largely black and came from Oakland, and were armed, as is our their right as free men and women. They came to protest the abuse of them and others in Oakland by the local police. The law was passed to disarm Black Americans.
In the spring of 2011 Charles decided it was time to overturn this abuse. We talked beforehand; my son suggested that his unloaded rifle be slung over his shoulder as he took his announced walk on the Redondo pier. I, and my Uncle Lance Block were there with him.
I am proud to have supported his quest to restore our rights ever since.