1 January, 2024
A curious thing happened over the Christmas break this year. It runs afoul of every assumption I have made about all the "Gun Rights" groups to which I've been donating over the past two decades. That assumption was that gun rights groups were interested in the full restoration of the 2nd Amendment. Yet, these so-called "Gun Rights" groups have allowed one California man to defend himself in court for over 12 years. Not a single one of these groups has offered to lend one scintilla of assistance to this man. His name is Charles Nichols, and his case, Nichols v. Newsom, et al., now sits on the doorstep of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the so-called "Gun Rights" groups are nowhere to be found.
I got a call this November from the NRA, asking if I would be renewing my membership. I asked the woman on the other end of the line if/when the NRA would be stepping in to help Mr. Nichols in his case. She expressed a great deal of interest when I explained that the case challenges the open and/or concealed carry of loaded and/or unloaded rifles, shotguns, and pistols in the State of California. She asked if I would stay on hold while she looked into it, to which I replied, "of course." She came back a few minutes later and said it wasn't on their radar but that she would look deeper into it and get back with me. It has been more than a month now, and I haven't heard back from the NRA.
This isn't the first time this exact scenario has played out with the NRA. They called me last year, the year before, and the year before that. The conversation always plays out the same way, and the result is always the same — a curious and deafening silence from the NRA. I thought it was a fluke, so I reached out to the all the other gun groups of whom I've been a member or followed over the past decade — the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), the Golden State 2nd Amendment Council (GS2AC), the National Association of Gun Rights (NAGR), the Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Gun Owners of California, etc. From the moment I became aware of Mr. Nichols' case, I have called for the gun groups of whom I've been a member to support his case.
No support has ever come. It's been absolutely mind-boggling. Here we have one case that would essentially legalize the open and concealed carry of rifles, pistols, and shotguns nationwide. The case originated in the hotbed of "gun-control" heaven, which means if we win here, we win everywhere. So, why has Mr. Nichols been left to fend for himself?
This man has devoted over 13 years of his precious life to this one important cause. He even got arrested and prosecuted for legally carrying an unloaded, single-shot, breech-loading shotgun in the City of Redondo Beach, California, just to prove to the preposterous Federal court that he had standing to sue California. Federal District Court Judge Otero had rubber-stamped a recommendation by a magistrate judge to dismiss his case, because neither then Governor Brown, nor Attorney General Kamala Harris, had personally threatened to arrest Mr. Nichols were he to openly carry a firearm in public. After Mr. Nichols was arrested and prosecuted for violating the Redondo Beach ordinance banning the possession, use, and carrying of firearms, Judge Otero "discovered" that Federal law does not require that a government official personally threaten to arrest someone in order for that person to have standing to challenge a law. The City of Redondo Beach then filed a motion for it to be dismissed from the case, because its local ordinance was preempted by the California Constitution, and thus, unenforceable. Notwithstanding this admission by the City of Redondo Beach in his Federal Civil case, California State Court judge Chet Taylor refused to dismiss the City's criminal prosecution against Mr. Nichols, because it would be "unfair" to the City of Redondo Beach if the City was unable to prosecute Mr. Nichols for violating a law which, the City had already admitted in writing, was in violation of the California Constitution. Judge Otero would eventually rule in favor of the State of California after comparing firearms to crystal meth and those who carried firearms to dealers in crystal meth.
This is beyond insanity, and I am beyond willing to donate to any gun rights group. They are all frauds as far as I'm concerned. Mr. Nichols' case is so airtight and has captured all the little technicalities and loopholes that California has invented to suppress his case that if even one major gun rights group would throw their weight behind him, it would be a watershed moment for the 2nd Amendment in this country should he prevail.
The question looms large — why aren't any of these gun rights groups supporting Mr. Nichols? Are they afraid of litigating themselves out of a job? After all, if Nichols v. Newsom et al. is ruled in favor of Mr. Nichols, there would be far fewer gun rights cases for the gun rights groups to fight, which means they'll need a lot fewer dollars in donations to "protect" the 2nd Amendment.
I don't want to sound conspiratorial, but it's hard to look at the balance of evidence surrounding this situation and not come to the conclusion that the "gun lobby" is more interested in perpetuating the status quo of an "always in peril 2nd Amendment" than they are of truly and fully dedicating themselves to the absolute defense of the 2nd Amendment — even if it means litigating themselves out of a job.
The Supreme Court will decide whether to take up Mr. Nichols' case when they return this Friday, January 5th, 2024. One Amicus brief was filed. I'm grateful to The Foundation for Moral Law for having filed the brief in support of Mr. Nichols. But, the Foundation for Moral Law is not exclusively a gun-rights group. The more Briefs filed in a case, the more likely the Court is to take a case. As it stands, the Court is unlikely to accept his case, due to the lack of filed Briefs in support of Mr. Nichols. When the Supreme Court denies his cert petition before judgment, his case will return to Federal district court. The district court will lift its stay and then issue a new schedule that will put off any final judgment in Mr. Nichols’ lawsuit until 2025, at the earliest. We will have to continue dealing with a patchwork of cases nationwide, all while our precious 2nd Amendment is chipped away. The silence of these so-called "Gun Rights" groups is deafening.
You can learn more about Mr. Nichols' case by going to his website.