Letter to the editor: Lawyers missed it on Peruta

I read the two lawyer's positions on the Peruta v. San Diego concealed carry decision with a kind of sad amusement. ["Misguided gun decision missed the bigger issue," by Joseph Greenlee and "Not just correct on law, it upholds the best policy," by Michael McLively (June 23)]. Neither of the lawyers defended the Second Amendment. This was the sad state of affairs when I wrote a motion and amicus brief in Peruta.

There were 25 Amicus briefs filed. Every one of them, except for mine, took the position that there is no Second Amendment right to openly carry a firearm in public.

In my motion to file an amicus brief I argued: "It is an historic tragedy that when the en banc court convenes on June 16th to hear oral arguments in Peruta that none of the attorneys present will be arguing to defend the Second Amendment as defined by the Heller decision. For that matter, they will not even be arguing in support of the Second Amendment as it was understood by the framers when it was enacted in 1791."

I began my motion by informing the court that I have a lawsuit which challenges California's bans on openly carrying loaded and unloaded firearms. Every amicus brief but mine was written and filed by attorneys. I wrote my amicus brief. The chief judge for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted my motion to file my brief. In the end, the only amicus who got what he wanted was me, the only one who isn't a lawyer.

The en banc Peruta panel decision took concealed carry completely off the table leaving my pure open carry lawsuit as the last one standing in California. Mine is the only case which argued from the beginning that concealed carry is not a right and mine is the only one which did not seek to carry a weapon concealed, not even in the curtilage of my home, not in a motor vehicle not in any public place, not anywhere.

Suffice it to say twhat the seven-judge majority decision was an originalist opinion that the late Justice Antonin Scalia would have applauded whereas the four judges in their dissents took the position that they could rewrite the Second Amendment to conform to what they think it should be today. Had they prevailed, Scalia would have rolled over in his grave.

Sometimes it is best not to ask lawyers to give an objective analysis of a court decision.

- Charles Nichols

California Right To Carry