Last Updated on September 10, 2020

Oral argument in the Second Amendment case, NYSRPA et al v. NYC et al took place on December 2nd, 2019!

On the 147th day after the oral argument took place in NYSRPA v. NYC, the case was dismissed as moot. The decision of the 2nd circuit was vacated and the case remanded.

THIS PAGE IS THE STATUS PAGE OF THE CALIFORNIA OPEN CARRY LAWSUIT – NICHOLS V. NEWSOM (formerly Nichols v. Brown) 14-55873

The Search Engines were sending people to my Archived California Open Carry Lawsuit Status Pages Containing the Updates Prior to 9/21/2018 and so I had to Disable them.

This Status Page is for Updates from September 21, 2018, and Onward

The links to Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Related Cert Petitions which are Pending before SCOTUS, Cert Granted, or Candidates for Cert have been moved to a new page. Click Here!

On November 30, 2011, I walked into the old Federal courthouse for the Central District of California in downtown Los Angeles and filed my lawsuit to overturn California’s ban on openly carrying loaded firearms in public.

My 9th year of litigation began on November 30th, 2019.

It has been 945 days since oral argument took place in my California Open Carry lawsuit, Nichols v. Brown (now Nichols v. Newsom) on February 15, 2018.

It has been 2305 days since my notice of appeal was filed on May 27, 2014. Half of all appeals filed in the 9th circuit are decided in 12.2 months. Six years is more than 12.2 months.

It has been 3214 days since my California Open Carry lawsuit was filed in the district court on November 30, 2011. That makes Nichols v. Newsom (formerly Nichols v. Brown) the oldest right to bear arms in public lawsuit still standing.

It has been 3402 days since I announced my intention to file my California Open Carry lawsuit.

It has been 3646 days since I began preparing for my California Open Carry lawsuit.

We are still waiting on a final decision in Young v. Hawaii after which there will be a decision by the three-judge panel assigned to my appeal.

If SCOTUS grants a 2A cert petition before there is a final decision in my appeal here in the 9th circuit then my appeal, as well as any other 2A related case on appeal will be stayed pending a decision by SCOTUS. Given the glacial pace which the 9th circuit decides Second Amendment cases, it is more likely than not that this will happen. As such, this status page is not devoted exclusively to listing the latest docket entries to my appeal. As the judge-made law of this circuit dictates that my Second Amendment challenge is dependent on the outcome of the Young v. Hawaii appeal because Young v. Hawaii was submitted for a decision three days before mine, I will be paying particularly close attention to that appeal.

Young v. State of Hawaii Appeal 12-17808 – En Banc Petition Granted on 2-8-2019

On April 9, 2019, a lawsuit was filed in the Eastern Federal District of Court challenging California’s handgun Open Carry bans. It does not challenge the Loaded Open Carry ban as applied to handguns or the Unloaded Long Gun Open Carry ban. Here is a link to that case.

Baird et al v. Becerra

Status Updates

Today is September 17, 2020.

Update September 10, 2020 – Today, the 9th circuit court of appeals denied an en banc petition in a case in which the three-judge panel held that the Federal lifetime ban on possession of firearms for a prior confinement to a mental institution is constitutional under Intermediate Scrutiny. I was surprised to see among the names of the judges who would have granted the petition Bennett and Bade. This augers well for a future 2A case being granted an en banc rehearing where the plaintiff lost before a three-judge panel. The active judges who dissented from the denial of granting the en banc petition were: Collins, Bumatay, VanDyke, Ikuta, Bade, Hunsaker, Bennett, Collins, Bress.

The dissents can be read here -> 18-36071

Update August 31, 2020 – It has been over a year since the Plaintiffs filed their motion for a preliminary injunction and the state filed its motion to dismiss. On October 9th of last year, Federal District Court judge Mueller held a hearing on the motions. She said she would issue her decision soon. Well, today she finally got around to issuing her decision on the motions. Judge Mueller’s Modus Operandi is to piecemeal dismiss parts of a lawsuit with prejudice and dismiss the other parts without prejudice, meaning that the plaintiffs would have to file an Amended Complaint if they wish to continue with their lawsuit. True to form, that is exactly what happened here.

The Plaintiffs have 21 days to file an Amended Complaint.

33 – Baird v. Becerra

Update – August 28, 2020, – The State of California filed an en banc petition in the magazine ban case, Duncan v. Becerra.

Duncan v. Becerra Petition for Rehearing En Banc filed on 8-28-2020

Update – August 24, 2020, – The date and time for the Young v. Hawaii en banc oral argument has been set to September 24, at 1:30 PM. The oral argument will take place online.

7 days 3 hours 22 minutes 24 seconds until en banc oral argument in Young v. Hawaii

Update – August 15, 2020, – Trump appointee, Judge Lee, wrote a good opinion in Duncan v. Becerra, the challenge to California’s magazine ban. The opinion reminded three-judge panels that evidence is required by the state to support the defense of its anti-gun laws. The State of California did not file any evidence in my case in support of California’s Open Carry bans. Neither did the State of Illinois in Moore v. Madigan, the lawsuit that challenged Illinois’ bans on carrying loaded and unloaded firearms in cities, towns, and villages. That proved fatal to Illinois in Moore v. Madigan, and if the Duncan v. Becerra decision stands then it will prove fatal to the State of California in my Open Carry appeal.

Update – July 4, 2020, – Nothing says “Independence Day” like carrying a rifle.

Update – June 29, 2020, – The supplemental en banc reply briefs were filed in Young v. Hawaii. The appeal is now fully briefed. Oral argument is scheduled for the week of September 21st.

Update – June 15, 2020, – All ten Second Amendment cert petitions voted on in the last conference have been “DENIED.” Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Kavanaugh in part, wrote a dissent to the denial of cert. The failure of the US Supreme Court to take on the “heightened need” justification for the carrying of handguns in public does not bode well for Young v. Hawaii because state law has that exception and Mr. Young did not claim that he has a heightened need. On the other hand, California bans the carrying of all loaded firearms for the purpose of self-defense outside of the interior of one’s home if one is in an incorporated city or in prohibited areas of unincorporated county territory. Licenses to openly carry handguns are only theoretically available in counties with a population of fewer than 200,000 people. No matter how great the need, there is simply no way that one can obtain a license to carry any loaded firearm or any unloaded that is not an antique for the purpose of self-defense in California outside of these counties and even then, the licenses are valid only inside the county. And unlike Mr. Young, I have such a heightened need, and the State of California did not dispute that fact. In short, the en banc panel can tell Mr. Young that he cannot challenge the law as it applies to others because the law is constitutional as applied to him. I, on the other hand, can challenge California’s bans as they apply to others because the law is unconstitutional as it applies to me. If Mr. Young loses then the circuit split remains. If I lose my California Open Carry lawsuit then the 9th circuit will have created a split with every Federal circuit because for me to lose, the 9th circuit court of appeals will have to conclude that the right to keep and bear arms does not extend even one inch outside the doors to our home. Every other Federal circuit court of appeals has either held that the Second Amendment right extends outside the home or assumes that the right extends outside of the home.`

Click here for a pdf of Justice Thomas’ dissent to the denial of cert.

Update – June 8, 2020, – All ten Second Amendment cert petitions voted on in the last conference have been “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/11/2020.”

Update – June 5, 2020, – Yesterday was the deadline to file Amicus briefs in Young v. Hawaii, you can find links to them under the June 4, 2020, Update by clicking here.

Update – June 1, 2020, – All ten of the Second Amendment cert petitions have been relisted to the June 4th private conference of justices.

Update – May 30, 2020, – After a highly unusual relist of all ten cases to May 28th on the Friday after the SCOTUS conference of May 21st, none of the cases was relisted, granted (possible, but rare) on the afternoon of the Thursday conference of May 28th or on the following day. We are now waiting for the Orders list to be released Monday morning at 6:30 AM Pacific Time. The simultaneous supplemental briefs in Young v. Hawaii are still scheduled for Thursday, June 4th, which is also a SCOTUS conference day. En banc oral argument in Young v. Hawaii is scheduled for the week of September 21st. We won’t know who the 10 random members of the panel are until Monday, September 14th. The last SCOTUS conference for this term is scheduled for June 25th. The last day of this SCOTUS term is scheduled for June 29th. The next SCOTUS term begins on October 1st. Unless one or more of the pending Second Amendment cert petitions is granted, it is highly unlikely that they will be held over for another term. It takes four votes of the justices to grant a cert petition. We have four justices who expressed their willingness to grant a 2A petition. Not forgetting that NYSRPA v. NYC was a 2A case. Unfortunately, NYSRPA has made it very easy to moot the carry cases. Fingers crossed. In the Mark Baird v. Becerra handgun Open Carry lawsuit, there hasn’t been a peep from the district court since October 9th of 2019.

Today marked the mid-point of my 9th year of litigation in my Californa Open Carry lawsuit.

Update – May 18, 2020, – None of the ten Second Amendment cert petitions scheduled for last Friday’s conference was granted or denied. They are relisted for this Thursday’s Conference. One of the eleven (Beers) was GVR’d as moot. Three of the thirteen “qualified immunity” petitions were denied. The remainder were relisted to this Thursday’s conference or rescheduled to an unknown date.

Update – May 4, 2020, – None of the ten Second Amendment cert petitions scheduled for last Friday’s conference was granted or denied. That means we are going to have to wait a bit more.

Update – May 1, 2020, – Six years ago today, Federal district court judge Samuel James Otero held that firearms are no different from crystal meth and the people who carry firearms are no different from drug dealers in his final judgment in favor of the State of California in my lawsuit challenging California’s bans on openly carrying loaded and unloaded firearms for the purpose of self-defense. I filed my appeal on May 27th.

Update – April 30, 2020, – The stay was lifted today in Young v. Hawaii. See the Young v. Hawaii case page under today’s update for more details.

Update – April 27, 2020, – On the 147th day after the oral argument took place in NYSRPA v. NYC the case was dismissed as moot, the decision of the 2nd circuit was vacated and the case remanded. UPDATE: SCOTUS has scheduled ten Second Amendment cert petitions for this Friday.

Update – April 23, 2020, – I began preparing for my California Open Carry lawsuit 3,500 days ago.

Update – April 23, 2020, – SCOTUS published three more opinions today. Two from before NYSRPA was argued. None of the 2A cases has been relisted. There is a possibility of 2A relists on May 1st. The next opportunity will be the conference on May 15th. Today, Federal Southern District Judge Roger T. Benitez issued a preliminary injunction against “the ammunition sales background check provisions found in California Penal Code §§ 30370(a) through (d) and 30352, and the ammunition anti-importation provisions found in §§ 30312(a) and (b), and 30314(a) as well as the criminal enforcement of California Penal Code §§ 30365, 30312(d) and 30314(c).”

Update – April 20, 2020, – Lori Rodriguez, et al., Petitioners v. City of San Jose, California, et al., survived the conference of 4/17/2020. Response Requested. (Due May 20, 2020). This Friday is another relist conference. Next Monday we should have the Orders list from this Friday’s conference. There were no 2A cert petitions granted or denied today.

Update – April 13, 2020, – Lori Rodriguez, et al., Petitioners v. City of San Jose, California, et al., is still scheduled for the conference of 4/17/2020. This is not a relist but this Friday is a relist conference. Since none of the other 2A cert petitions were relisted for this Friday, we are going to have to wait a bit more. The next relist conference is on April, 24th.

Update – April 6, 2020, – SCOTUS tore a huge hole in the Fourth Amendment today in an 8-1 decision. 101 petitions were denied, none was a 2A case. Two decisions were published, neither was a 2A decision. No conference next Friday. Although SCOTUS can publish an opinion any time it wants to, we probably won’t have any more (well, maybe one more) published before April 20th.

Update – March 30, 2020, – SCOTUS published one opinion today. There were no grants or denials of Second Amendment cert petitions. This Friday’s conference is a relist conference. The Orders List for that conference will be published next Monday. No more opinions are expected for this week.

Update – March 23, 2020, – SCOTUS published five opinions today, NYSRPA was not one of them. No new cert petitions were granted today. SCOTUS canceled (postponed indefinitely) all of its oral arguments from the 5th of March up to April 20th. Last Friday’s conference took place, eight of the justices participated via telephone, Chief Justice Roberts was in the conference room. Given that the oral arguments have been canceled, and with justices working from home, we should have opinions published in the remaining cases which have already been argued, sooner than later. Should.

Update – March 11, 2020, – It has been 100 days since the oral argument in NYSRPA v. NYC took place. That suggests, but does not guarantee, that we will have a decision in the case instead of simply dissents to the denial of cert. Dissents to the denial of cert in a 2A case are rare, nearly all have simply been denied without a dissent. There have been three denials with one or two justices dissenting, always Justice Thomas, once with Justice Gorsuch joining in the dissent and twice by the late Justice Scalia joining in the dissent. They took 45, 59, and 113 days from their first SCOTUS conference to the denial of their cert petitions. We have had two published decisions and a per curiam. The Heller decision took 100 days. McDonald took 113, and Caetano took 129 days. Caetano was a very narrow 5 paragraph decision accompanied by a 10-page concurrence by Justice Alito.

Update – March 9, 2020, – Matthew Wilson v. Cook County Ill., survived its first SCOTUS conference. The lawsuit challenges an “assault” rifle and magazine ban.

Update – March 2, 2020, – Oral argument in NYSRPA v. NYC took place three months ago, on December 2nd, 2019. The bump stock cert petition (Guedes) was denied with a statement by Justice Gorsuch saying he agreed with the denial on procedural grounds while at the same time giving the Plaintiffs arguments to make along with a cautionary note to the lower court judges. It remains to be seen if either the Plaintiffs or the lower court judges listen. This Friday, the “Assault Weapon” and magazine ban out of Cook County Illinois gets its first SCOTUS conference. There were several cert petitions of interest denied today, see my cert petition page.

Update – February 24, 2020, – Kevin W. Culp, et al., Petitioners v. Kwame Raoul, Attorney General of Illinois, et al (concealed carry permits) survived its first conference. This is the first time since April 24, 2017, that a concealed carry cert petition (Peruta v. San Diego) survived its first conference. SCOTUS also reversed and remanded a case involving firearms, mens rea, and vagueness in light of Rehaif v. United States. By doing so, SCOTUS has greatly strengthened my vagueness claim against the “prohibited areas” in California’s bans on Open Carry that apply outside of incorporated cities.

Update – February 20, 2020, – Wilson v. Cook County Illinois – “Assault weapons ban.” – DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/6/2020.

Update – February 16, 2020, – It has been 3,000 days today since my California Open Carry lawsuit was filed in Federal Court. Yesterday was the second anniversary of my oral argument on appeal having taken place. Here is a brief message I sent to my supporters:

My thanks to all of you who have supported me in my lawsuit. I first announced my intention to file my lawsuit on May 26, 2011. My lawsuit was filed on November 30, 2011. My notice of appeal was filed on May 27, 2014.

Two years ago today (February 15, 2018), I argued my California Open Carry lawsuit before this three-judge panel of the 9th circuit court of appeals. If I had agreed with Judge Berzon’s question then I would have lost my Second Amendment Claim right then and there. As you can see, I did not. I stuck to my guns, as it were. This excerpt from my oral argument is why my lawsuit is still standing.

The George Young Jr., v. Hawaii appeal, was argued and submitted by its three-judge panel for a decision three days before my oral argument took place. That means the decision in that case (more so now that it is being reheard before an en banc panel of eleven judges) will be binding on the three-judge panel assigned to my appeal. The threshold Second Amendment question in both appeals (Young v. Hawaii, Nichols v. Newsom (formerly Nichols v. Brown)) is whether or not the Second Amendment right extends beyond the interior of our homes.

Mr. Young’s appeal is stayed, meaning there will be no movement in his appeal, until he either files a motion to lift the stay (he did, it was denied) or his eleven-judge panel lifts the stay, and that won’t happen until after there is a decision by SCOTUS in NYSRPA v. NYC.

My appeal, Nichols v. Newsom, is not stayed. There are several things I could do which theoretically might move my appeal forward but the probability of success is slim to none. The NRA, CRPA concealed carry lawsuit (Flanagan v. Becerra) is stayed. That means there is zero chance of it maneuvering in front of my California Open Carry lawsuit. Once there is a final decision in Young v. Hawaii, my appeal is automatically “taken under submission for a decision” meaning that it is my appeal which will decide whether or not California’s Open Carry bans are unconstitutional. The NRA/CRPA in its latest Flanagan v. Becerra lawsuit makes the same argument it made in Peruta v. San San Diego and McKay v. Hutchens. Namely, that the US Supreme Court in its decision District of Columbia v. Heller said that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry.

We will, undoubtedly, have a decision by SCOTUS in NYSRPA v. NYC by the end of June.

Depending upon what SCOTUS says and does with that appeal and depending upon what SCOTUS says and does with the “carry cases” cert petitions pending this term (which ends in June) then there will either be a relatively quick decision in Young v. Hawaii or there will be en banc oral argument in Young v. Hawaii followed by either a decision in my appeal or another round of oral argument in my appeal.

There is no way of predicting.

Update – February 10, 2020, – The links to Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Related Cert Petitions which are Pending before SCOTUS, Cert Granted, or Candidates for Cert have been moved to a new page. Click Here!.

Update – January 29, 2020, – Today, Culp v. Raoul was DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020. Before Worman and Guedes survived their conferences, I had this to say about this case: “If anyone bothers to read this petition carefully then it is D.O.A. The best it can hope for is simply to be GVR’d fora do-over “in light of” some other 2A decision from this term. The question presented is: Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms requires that the State of Illinois allow qualified non-residents to apply for an Illinois concealed carry license.”

It isn’t surprising that this case was scheduled for a conference now, this is its first conference. I make no predictions on its chances for survival.

Update – January 27, 2020, – Both Malpasso (handgun carry) and Guedes (bump stocks) survived another SCOTUS conference. The next SCOTUS conference will not take place until February 21st. Although there is a theoretical possibility that either or both of these cert petitions could be granted before SCOTUS returns, it is highly unlikely.

Update – January 24, 2020, – Another Second Amendment cert petition has been filed. Bradley Beers, Petitioner v. William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al. QUESTION PRESENTED: May the government permanently deny a mentally healthy, responsible, and law-abiding citizen of the United States the opportunity to recover his Second Amendment rights solely because of a long-ago involuntary commitment?

Update – January 21, 2020, – The Guedes cert petition (bump-stocks/Chevron Deference) has been DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2020. This is its third conference. Relatively few cert petitions survive their first conference.

Update – January 20, 2020, – My January 11th, 2020, update contains the appellate docket of my California Open Carry lawsuit. Here is the district court docket:

2:11-cv-09916-SJO-SS Charles Nichols v. Edmund G Brown Jr et al

S. James Otero, presiding

Suzanne H. Segal, referral

Date filed: 11/30/2011

Date terminated: 05/01/2014

Date of last filing: 12/07/2018

History

Doc.

No. Dates Description 176 Filed: 12/07/2018 Entered: 12/10/2018 USCA Memorandum/Opinion/Order 175 Filed: 02/27/2018 Entered: 02/28/2018 USCA Memorandum/Opinion/Order 174 Filed: 07/22/2016 Entered: 07/26/2016 USCA Memorandum/Opinion/Order 173 Filed: 04/13/2015 Entered: 04/14/2015 USCA Memorandum/Opinion/Order 172 Filed: 01/21/2015 Entered: 01/22/2015 USCA Memorandum/Opinion/Order 171 Filed: 07/03/2014 Entered: 07/08/2014 USCA Mandate 170 Filed: 06/10/2014 Entered: 06/16/2014 USCA Memorandum/Opinion/Order 169 Filed: 05/29/2014 Entered: 05/30/2014 USCA Notification of Case Number 168 Filed: 05/27/2014 Entered: 05/28/2014 Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 166 Filed & Entered: 05/01/2014 R&R – Accepting Report and Recommendations 167 Filed & Entered: 05/01/2014 Judgment 164 Filed & Entered: 04/14/2014 Reply to Objection to Report and Recommendation 165 Filed: 04/11/2014 Entered: 04/16/2014 Notice of Document Discrepancies and Order – Rejecting 163 Filed: 03/31/2014 Entered: 04/02/2014 Objection to Report and Recommendations 161 Filed & Entered: 03/18/2014 Notice of Report and Recommendation 162 Filed & Entered: 03/18/2014 Report and Recommendation (Issued) 159 Filed: 02/05/2014 Entered: 02/06/2014 Supplement(Motion related) 160 Filed: 02/05/2014 Entered: 02/06/2014 Declaration 158 Filed: 02/03/2014 Entered: 02/05/2014 Response 157 Filed & Entered: 01/28/2014 Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 155 Filed: 01/13/2014 Entered: 01/16/2014 Notice (Other) 156 Filed: 01/13/2014 Entered: 01/16/2014 Declaration 153 Filed: 01/10/2014 Entered: 01/13/2014 Notice (Other) 154 Filed: 01/10/2014 Entered: 01/13/2014 Declaration 150 Filed: 01/06/2014 Entered: 01/09/2014 Notice (Other) 151 Filed: 01/06/2014 Entered: 01/09/2014 Response 152 Filed: 01/06/2014 Entered: 01/09/2014 Declaration 149 Filed & Entered: 12/27/2013 Objection 147 Filed: 12/13/2013 Entered: 12/16/2013 Notice (Other) 148 Filed: 12/13/2013 Entered: 12/16/2013 Declaration 143 Filed: 12/09/2013 Entered: 12/12/2013 Reply 144 Filed: 12/09/2013 Entered: 12/12/2013 Reply 145 Filed: 12/09/2013 Entered: 12/12/2013 Objection 146 Filed: 12/09/2013 Entered: 12/12/2013 Objection 141 Filed & Entered: 12/03/2013 Errata 142 Filed & Entered: 12/03/2013 Reply (Motion related) 140 Filed & Entered: 12/02/2013 Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 138 Filed: 11/26/2013 Entered: 12/02/2013 Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 139 Filed: 11/26/2013 Entered: 12/02/2013 Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 137 Filed & Entered: 11/18/2013 Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive – no proceeding held 130 Filed & Entered: 11/13/2013 Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive – no proceeding held 129 Filed & Entered: 11/12/2013 Terminated: 05/01/2014 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 131 Filed: 11/08/2013 Entered: 11/15/2013 Terminated: 05/01/2014 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 132 Filed: 11/08/2013 Entered: 11/15/2013 Memorandum in Support of Motion 133 Filed: 11/08/2013 Entered: 11/15/2013 Declaration (Motion related) 134 Filed: 11/08/2013 Entered: 11/15/2013 Exhibit to Motion 135 Filed: 11/08/2013 Entered: 11/15/2013 Notice of Lodging 136 Filed: 11/08/2013 Entered: 11/15/2013 Notice of Lodging 128 Filed: 10/15/2013 Entered: 10/17/2013 USCA Memorandum/Opinion/Order 126 Filed & Entered: 08/08/2013 Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive – no proceeding held 127 Filed: 08/07/2013 Entered: 08/08/2013 Status Report 125 Filed: 08/05/2013 Entered: 08/07/2013 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Party(ies) (Pursuant to FRCP 41a(1)) 124 Filed: 08/02/2013 Entered: 08/05/2013 USCA Memorandum/Opinion/Order 123 Filed & Entered: 07/29/2013 Status Report 122 Filed & Entered: 07/22/2013 Status Report 121 Filed & Entered: 07/18/2013 Order on Ex Parte Application to Stay Case 120 Filed & Entered: 07/17/2013 Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 119 Filed & Entered: 07/16/2013 Miscellaneous Document 115 Filed: 07/12/2013 Entered: 07/15/2013 Notice (Other) 116 Filed: 07/12/2013 Entered: 07/15/2013 Terminated: 07/18/2013 (TERMED) Ex Parte Application to Stay Case 117 Filed: 07/12/2013 Entered: 07/15/2013 Notice of Lodging 118 Filed: 07/12/2013 Entered: 07/15/2013 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support 114 Filed & Entered: 07/10/2013 Notice of Clerical Error (G-11) 110 Filed & Entered: 07/09/2013 Filing Fee Letter (A-15CV) 111 Filed & Entered: 07/09/2013 USCA Notification of Case Number 109 Filed: 07/08/2013 Entered: 07/09/2013 Terminated: 07/03/2014 Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 112 Filed: 07/08/2013 Entered: 07/10/2013 Appeal Fees Paid 113 Filed: 07/06/2013 Entered: 07/10/2013 Order on Petition for Certificate of Appealability 108 Filed & Entered: 07/03/2013 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction 107 Filed & Entered: 06/12/2013 Scheduling Order 105 Filed: 06/03/2013 Entered: 06/04/2013 Reply (Motion related) 106 Filed: 06/03/2013 Entered: 06/04/2013 Request for Judicial Notice 104 Filed & Entered: 05/28/2013 Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 102 Filed & Entered: 05/16/2013 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction 103 Filed: 05/16/2013 Entered: 05/17/2013 Reply 97 Filed & Entered: 05/07/2013 Reply (Motion related) 98 Filed & Entered: 05/07/2013 Request for Judicial Notice 99 Filed & Entered: 05/07/2013 Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 100 Filed: 05/07/2013 Entered: 05/08/2013 Reply (Motion related) 101 Filed: 05/07/2013 Entered: 05/08/2013 Request for Judicial Notice 96 Filed & Entered: 05/02/2013 Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 95 Filed: 04/30/2013 Entered: 05/01/2013 Response in Opposition to Motion 93 Filed & Entered: 04/19/2013 Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive – no proceeding held 94 Filed & Entered: 04/19/2013 Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive – no proceeding held 92 Filed & Entered: 04/18/2013 Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive – no proceeding held 91 Filed & Entered: 04/16/2013 Answer to Complaint 89 Filed & Entered: 04/15/2013 Terminated: 08/08/2013 Motion to Dismiss Case 90 Filed & Entered: 04/15/2013 Memorandum in Support of Motion 85 Filed: 04/10/2013 Entered: 04/12/2013 Terminated: 07/03/2013 Motion for Preliminary Injunction 86 Filed: 04/10/2013 Entered: 04/12/2013 Memorandum in Support of Motion 87 Filed: 04/10/2013 Entered: 04/12/2013 Declaration (Motion related) 88 Filed: 04/10/2013 Entered: 04/12/2013 Request for Judicial Notice 84 Filed & Entered: 04/02/2013 Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive – no proceeding held 83 Filed: 03/29/2013 Entered: 04/01/2013 Amended Complaint 82 Filed: 03/03/2013 Entered: 03/05/2013 Order on Motion to Dismiss 81 Filed: 02/28/2013 Entered: 03/04/2013 Notice (Other) 80 Filed: 02/25/2013 Entered: 02/27/2013 Notice (Other) 77 Filed & Entered: 01/11/2013 Supplement 78 Filed & Entered: 01/11/2013 Supplement 79 Filed & Entered: 01/11/2013 Notice of Related Case(s) 76 Filed: 12/21/2012 Entered: 12/26/2012 Order on Motion to Substitute Attorney 74 Filed: 12/20/2012 Entered: 12/21/2012 Notice of Document Discrepancies – Granting 75 Filed: 12/20/2012 Entered: 12/21/2012 Terminated: 12/21/2012 Motion to Substitute Attorney 73 Filed & Entered: 12/17/2012 Notice (Other) 72 Filed & Entered: 12/04/2012 Objection to Report and Recommendations 70 Filed & Entered: 11/20/2012 Notice of Report and Recommendation 71 Filed & Entered: 11/20/2012 Report and Recommendation (Issued) 69 Filed & Entered: 07/23/2012 Reply (Motion related) 67 Filed & Entered: 07/20/2012 Reply (Motion related) 68 Filed & Entered: 07/20/2012 Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 64 Filed & Entered: 07/16/2012 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motion 65 Filed & Entered: 07/16/2012 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motion 66 Filed & Entered: 07/16/2012 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motion 63 Filed & Entered: 07/13/2012 Order on Request to Substitute Attorney 62 Filed & Entered: 07/12/2012 Terminated: 07/13/2012 Request to Substitute or Withdraw Attorney (G-01) 61 Filed & Entered: 07/05/2012 Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive – no proceeding held 59 Filed & Entered: 07/02/2012 Order on Request to Substitute Attorney 60 Filed: 07/02/2012 Entered: 07/05/2012 Objection 54 Filed & Entered: 06/29/2012 Terminated: 03/03/2013 Motion to Dismiss (cause or other) 55 Filed & Entered: 06/29/2012 Memorandum in Support of Motion 56 Filed & Entered: 06/29/2012 Declaration (Motion related) 57 Filed & Entered: 06/29/2012 Supplement(Motion related) 58 Filed & Entered: 06/29/2012 Terminated: 03/03/2013 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 53 Filed & Entered: 06/28/2012 Terminated: 07/02/2012 Request to Substitute or Withdraw Attorney (G-01) 52 Filed & Entered: 06/27/2012 Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive – no proceeding held 48 Filed: 06/19/2012 Entered: 06/20/2012 Proof of Service (subsequent documents) 49 Filed: 06/19/2012 Entered: 06/20/2012 Proof of Service (subsequent documents) 50 Filed: 06/19/2012 Entered: 06/20/2012 Proof of Service (subsequent documents) 51 Filed: 06/19/2012 Entered: 06/20/2012 Proof of Service (subsequent documents) Filed: 05/30/2012 Entered: 06/18/2012 Summons Issued 47 Filed & Entered: 05/30/2012 Amended Complaint 45 Filed & Entered: 05/07/2012 Order on Motion for Review 46 Filed: 05/07/2012 Entered: 05/08/2012 R&R – Accepting Report and Recommendations 44 Filed: 05/02/2012 Entered: 05/03/2012 Errata 43 Filed & Entered: 05/01/2012 Reply to Objection to Report and Recommendation 41 Filed & Entered: 04/17/2012 Terminated: 05/07/2012 Motion for Review 42 Filed & Entered: 04/17/2012 Memorandum in Support of Motion 39 Filed & Entered: 04/05/2012 Notice of Report and Recommendation 40 Filed & Entered: 04/05/2012 Report and Recommendation (Issued) 38 Filed & Entered: 03/19/2012 Reply (Motion related) 36 Filed: 03/12/2012 Entered: 03/13/2012 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition 37 Filed: 03/12/2012 Entered: 03/13/2012 Declaration 35 Filed & Entered: 03/09/2012 Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive – no proceeding held 34 Filed & Entered: 03/08/2012 Terminated: 05/07/2012 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 33 Filed: 02/24/2012 Entered: 02/27/2012 Proof of Service (subsequent documents) 32 Filed & Entered: 02/21/2012 Notice (Other) 31 Filed & Entered: 02/17/2012 Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive – no proceeding held 30 Filed & Entered: 02/16/2012 Notice (Other) 29 Filed & Entered: 02/15/2012 Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive – no proceeding held 25 Filed & Entered: 02/14/2012 Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 26 Filed & Entered: 02/14/2012 Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 27 Filed & Entered: 02/14/2012 Reply (Motion related) 28 Filed & Entered: 02/14/2012 Reply (Motion related) 23 Filed & Entered: 02/13/2012 Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 24 Filed: 02/10/2012 Entered: 02/14/2012 Request for Judicial Notice 17 Filed: 02/08/2012 Entered: 02/10/2012 Request for Judicial Notice 18 Filed: 02/08/2012 Entered: 02/10/2012 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition 19 Filed: 02/08/2012 Entered: 02/10/2012 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition 20 Filed: 02/08/2012 Entered: 02/10/2012 Notice of Lodging 21 Filed: 02/08/2012 Entered: 02/10/2012 Declaration 22 Filed: 02/08/2012 Entered: 02/10/2012 Terminated: 02/16/2012 (TERMED) Application for Clerk to Enter Default 16 Filed & Entered: 02/02/2012 Consent to Proceed before US Magistrate Judge – DECLINED by Judge 15 Filed & Entered: 02/01/2012 Notice (Other) 14 Filed & Entered: 01/31/2012 Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive – no proceeding held 12 Filed & Entered: 01/30/2012 Terminated: 05/07/2012 Motion to Dismiss Case 13 Filed & Entered: 01/30/2012 Terminated: 05/07/2012 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 11 Filed & Entered: 01/19/2012 Order on Ex Parte Application to Seal (Document) 10 Filed: 01/17/2012 Entered: 01/19/2012 Terminated: 01/19/2012 (TERMED) Ex Parte Application to Seal (a Document) 5 Filed: 01/12/2012 Entered: 01/17/2012 Proof of Service (subsequent documents) 6 Filed: 01/12/2012 Entered: 01/17/2012 Proof of Service (subsequent documents) 7 Filed: 01/12/2012 Entered: 01/17/2012 Proof of Service (subsequent documents) 8 Filed: 01/12/2012 Entered: 01/17/2012 Proof of Service (subsequent documents) 9 Filed: 01/12/2012 Entered: 01/17/2012 Proof of Service (subsequent documents) 4 Filed & Entered: 12/07/2011 Order 1 Filed: 11/30/2011 Entered: 12/01/2011 Complaint – (Referred) 2 Filed: 11/30/2011 Entered: 12/01/2011 Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties 3 Filed: 11/30/2011 Entered: 12/01/2011 Notice of Reference to US Magistrate Judge (CV-25) – optional html form

Update – January 13th, 2020,

– Given that SCOTUS already had the chance to clarify whether or not so-called “assault weapons” and “Large” capacity magazines are protected by the Second Amendment since Justice Kavanaugh was appointed to the bench, I fully expected the Worman v Healy cert petition to be denied today. The petition was neither granted nor denied. Likewise, a similar case involving bump stocks but with a different legal challenge (not 2A) also survived, for now.

EDIT: Guedes (bump-stocks) DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2020.

Update – January 11th, 2020, – Given that I had to access the Young v. Hawaii docket, I thought that since I was there I would copy and paste the docket to my California Open Carry appeal as well. This is my docket as it appeared today. Although my appeal is not stayed, it isn’t going anywhere until there is a decision in Young v. Hawaii, or unless my appeal is consolidated with the Young v. Hawaii en banc appeal. I have no intention to make that request but the 9th circuit court of appeals does not need for me to ask, it can consolidate our cases by a simple majority vote of active judges. You might notice that my last FRAP 28(j) filing was in June of 2018. There are a dozen or more cases decided in other circuits and by the Supreme Court since then that I could have filed but at this point it would be futile. My three-judge panel is not going to issue a judgment in my appeal until the Mandate in Young v. Hawaii has been issued.

General Docket

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals Docket #: 14-55873 Docketed: 05/29/2014 Nature of Suit: 3440 Other Civil Rights Charles Nichols v. Gavin Newsom, et al Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Central California, Los Angeles Fee Status: Paid Case Type Information: 1) civil 2) private 3) null Originating Court Information: District: 0973-2 : 2:11-cv-09916-SJO-SS Court Reporter: Alberto V. Ortiz, Court Reporter Supervisor Trial Judge: S. James Otero, Senior District Judge Date Filed: 11/30/2011 Date Order/Judgment: Date Order/Judgment EOD: Date NOA Filed: Date Rec’d COA: 05/01/2014 05/01/2014 05/27/2014 05/28/2014 Prior Cases: None Current Cases: None

CHARLES NICHOLS

Plaintiff – Appellant, Charles Nichols

Direct: 424-634-7381

[NTC Pro Se]

Charles Nichols

P. O. Box 1302

Redondo Beach, CA 90278 v. EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of California

Terminated: 03/11/2019

Defendant – Appellee, GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor of California

Defendant – Appellee, Jonathan Michael Eisenberg, Deputy Attorney General

Direct: 213-269-6246

[COR LD NTC Dep State Aty Gen]

AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General

Suite 1702

300 South Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90013 XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General in his official capacity as Attorney General of California

Defendant – Appellee, Jonathan Michael Eisenberg, Deputy Attorney General

Direct: 213-269-6246

[COR LD NTC Dep State Aty Gen]

(see above) KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General, Attorney General in her official capacity as Attorney General of California

Terminated: 06/21/2017

Defendant – Appellee, —————————— EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY

Amicus Curiae – Pending, Deepak Gupta

Direct: 202-888-1741

[COR LD NTC Retained]

Gupta Wessler PLLC

1900 L Street, NW

Suite 312

Washington, DC 20036 LAW CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE

Amicus Curiae – Pending, Simon J. Frankel, Esquire, Attorney

Direct: 415-591-7052

[COR LD NTC Retained]

Covington & Burling LLP

Salesforce Tower

Suite 5400

415 Mission Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-2533 BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE

Amicus Curiae – Pending, Megan Dixon, Attorney

Direct: 415-374-2305

[COR LD NTC Retained]

Hogan Lovells US LLP

1500

3 Embarcadero Center

San Francisco, CA 94111

CHARLES NICHOLS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor of California; XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General in his official capacity as Attorney General of California, Defendants – Appellees.

05/29/2014 1

30 pg, 477.86 KB DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF APPELLANT IN PRO SE AND COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Transcript ordered by 06/26/2014. Transcript due 09/24/2014. Appellant Charles Nichols opening brief due 11/03/2014. Appellees Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General answering brief due 12/03/2014. Appellant’s optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. [9112138] (BG) [Entered: 05/29/2014 09:35 AM] 10/16/2014 2

1 pg, 75.09 KB Streamlined request by Appellant Charles Nichols to extend time to file the opening brief is approved. Amended briefing schedule: Appellant Charles Nichols opening brief is due 12/02/2014. Appellees Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General answering brief is due 01/02/2015. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days from the date of service of the answering brief. [9278766] (DO) [Entered: 10/16/2014 10:38 AM] 11/19/2014 3

9 pg, 163.2 KB Filed (ECF) Appellee Kamala D. Harris Motion to stay proceedings. Date of service: 11/19/2014. [9319541] [14-55873] (Eisenberg, Jonathan) [Entered: 11/19/2014 04:00 PM] 11/23/2014 4

7 pg, 325.56 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Unopposed Motion to extend time to file Opening brief until 02/02/2015. Date of service: 11/23/2014. [9323238] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 11/23/2014 02:19 AM] 11/29/2014 5

15 pg, 539.94 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols response opposing motion (motion to stay proceedings). Date of service: 11/29/2014. [9329997] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 11/29/2014 04:02 PM] 12/01/2014 6

293 pg, 2.27 MB Submitted (ECF) Opening brief for review and filed Motion to file oversized brief. Submitted by Appellant Charles Nichols. Date of service: 12/01/2014. [9332447] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 12/01/2014 05:51 PM] 12/08/2014 7

7 pg, 149.71 KB Filed (ECF) Appellee Kamala D. Harris reply to response (). Date of service: 12/08/2014. [9340537] [14-55873] (Eisenberg, Jonathan) [Entered: 12/08/2014 01:07 PM] 12/15/2014 8

12 pg, 416.5 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Motion for miscellaneous relief [motion to file sur-reply in opposition to motion to stay proceedings with sur-reply attached]. Date of service: 12/15/2014. [9348557] [14-55873] –[COURT UPDATE: Updated docket text to reflect correct ECF filing type. 12/17/2014 by TL] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 12/15/2014 08:02 AM] 12/24/2014 9 Filed (ECF) Streamlined request for extension of time to file Answering Brief by Appellees Kamala D. Harris and Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. New requested due date is 01/30/2015. [9361612] [14-55873] (Eisenberg, Jonathan) [Entered: 12/24/2014 11:24 AM] 12/24/2014 10 Streamlined request [9] by Appellees Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and Kamala D. Harris to extend time to file the brief is not approved because it is unnecessary. The briefing schedule is stayed. See 9th Cir. R. 32-2. [9362274] (GS) [Entered: 12/24/2014 04:17 PM] 01/21/2015 11

2 pg, 44.1 KB Filed order (Appellate Commissioner):Appellant’s motion to file sur-reply in opposition to appellee’s motion to stay proceedings is granted. Appellant’s sur-reply and the previously submitted filings concerning the motion to stay proceedings have been considered. Appellees’ opposed motion to stay proceedings pending the court’s ruling whether to grant the petition for en banc review in Richards v. Prieto, No. 11-16255 is granted. Within 90 days after the date of this order or within 14 days after the court rules on the petition for en banc review in Richards, whichever occurs first, appellees shall file an appropriate motion addressing the status of this appeal and requesting a further stay or other relief. Appellant’s motion to file an oversized opening brief is granted in part. Appellant may file an opening brief that does not exceed 18,000 words. The opening brief is due within 14 days after the stay granted in the preceding paragraph (or any subsequent stay) expires. Appellant’s unopposed motion for an extension to file a shortened opening brief is granted. The answering brief is due within 45 days after the stay expires. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. (Pro Mo) [9389344] (MS) [Entered: 01/21/2015 09:54 AM] 04/09/2015 12

7 pg, 109.01 KB Filed (ECF) Appellee Kamala D. Harris Unopposed Motion to stay proceedings. Date of service: 04/09/2015. [9490307] [14-55873] (Eisenberg, Jonathan) [Entered: 04/09/2015 03:41 PM] 04/13/2015 13

2 pg, 45.26 KB Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LBS): Appellant’s unopposed motion to stay appellate proceedings pending disposition of two en banc cases, Peruta v. County of San Diego, case no. 10-56791, and Richards v. Prieto, case no. 11-16255, is granted. This case is stayed until August 14, 2015. On or before the expiration of the stay, appellant shall file the opening brief or file a status report and an appropriate motion. If appellant files the opening brief, the answering brief will be due September The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. The filing of the opening brief or failure to file a status report shall terminate the stay. [9493503] (SAM) [Entered: 04/13/2015 03:19 PM] 07/17/2015 14

19 pg, 785.34 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Unopposed Motion to stay proceedings. Date of service: 07/17/2015. [9613382] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/17/2015 09:18 AM] 07/21/2015 15

2 pg, 45.08 KB Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LBS): Appellant’s unopposed motion to further stay appellate proceedings pending disposition of two en banc cases, Peruta v. County of San Diego, case no. 10-56971, and Richards v. Prieto, case no. 11-16255, is granted. This case is stayed until November 9, 2015. On or before the expiration of the stay, appellant shall file the opening brief or file a status report and an appropriate motion. If appellant files the opening brief, the answering brief will be due December 9, 2015. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. The filing of the opening brief or failure to file a status report shall terminate the stay. [9617794] (SAM) [Entered: 07/21/2015 04:24 PM] 10/08/2015 16

20 pg, 1.27 MB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Unopposed Motion to stay proceedings. Date of service: 10/08/2015. [9713043] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 10/08/2015 09:29 PM] 11/09/2015 17

1 pg, 44.4 KB Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: AMT): Appellant’s unopposed motion to further stay appellate proceedings pending disposition of two en banc cases, Peruta v. County of San Diego, case no. 10- 56971, and Richards v. Prieto, case no. 11-16255, is granted. This case is stayed until February 8, 2016. On or before the expiration of the stay, appellant shall file the opening brief or file a status report and an appropriate motion. If appellant files the opening brief, the answering brief is due March 9, 2016. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. The filing of the opening brief or failure to file a status report shall terminate the stay. [9749950] (OC) [Entered: 11/09/2015 04:10 PM] 01/20/2016 18

14 pg, 1.1 MB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Unopposed Motion to stay proceedings. Date of service: 01/20/2016. [9832291] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 01/20/2016 01:03 AM] 02/04/2016 19

2 pg, 45.16 KB Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LBS): Appellant’s unopposed motion to further stay appellate proceedings pending disposition of two en banc cases, Peruta v. County of San Diego, case no. 10- 56971, and Richards v. Prieto, case no. 11-16255, is granted. This case is stayed until April 8, 2016. On or before the expiration of the stay, appellant shall file the opening brief or file a status report and an appropriate motion. If appellant files the opening brief, the answering brief is due May 9, 2016. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. The filing of the opening brief or failure to file a status report shall terminate the stay. [9855106] (OC) [Entered: 02/04/2016 03:43 PM] 03/17/2016 20

12 pg, 624.2 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Unopposed Motion to stay appellate proceedings. Date of service: 03/17/2016. [9904667] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 03/17/2016 12:12 AM] 03/17/2016 21

7 pg, 692.54 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols status report (as required by Court order dated 02/04/2016). Date of service: 03/17/2016 [9904668] [14-55873] –[COURT UPDATE: Updated docket text to reflect correct ECF filing type. 03/17/2016 by TYL] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 03/17/2016 12:15 AM] 04/05/2016 22

2 pg, 44.99 KB Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LBS): Appellant’s unopposed motion to further stay appellate proceedings pending disposition of two en banc cases, Peruta v. County of San Diego, case no. 10- 56971, and Richards v. Prieto, case no. 11-16255, is granted. This case is stayed until July 20, 2016. On or before the expiration of the stay, appellant shall file the opening brief or file a status report and an appropriate motion. If appellant files the opening brief, the answering brief is due August 19, 2016. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. The filing of the opening brief or failure to file a status report shall terminate the stay. [9928156] (OC) [Entered: 04/05/2016 02:12 PM] 07/17/2016 23

12 pg, 641.49 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Unopposed Motion to stay appellate proceedings. Date of service: 07/17/2016. [10052555] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/17/2016 10:56 PM] 07/17/2016 24

8 pg, 474.14 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols status report (as required by Court order dated 04/05/2016). Date of service: 07/17/2016 [10052556] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/17/2016 11:00 PM] 07/22/2016 25

2 pg, 45.29 KB Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LBS): Appellant’s unopposed motion (docket entry [23]) to further stay appellate proceedings pending disposition of the petitions for full court rehearing in Peruta v. County of San Diego, case no. 10-56971, and Richards v. Prieto, case no. 11-16255, is granted. This case is stayed until November 17, 2016. On or before the expiration of the stay, appellant shall file the opening brief or file a status report and an appropriate motion. If appellant files the opening brief, the answering brief is due December 19, 2016. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. The filing of the opening brief or failure to file a status report shall terminate the stay. [10060696] (AF) [Entered: 07/22/2016 05:01 PM] 11/09/2016 26

276 pg, 8.38 MB Submitted (ECF) Opening Brief for review. Submitted by Appellant Charles Nichols. Date of service: 11/09/2016. [10191823] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 11/09/2016 01:01 PM] 11/09/2016 27

298 pg, 7.94 MB Submitted (ECF) excerpts of record. Submitted by Appellant Charles Nichols. Date of service: 11/09/2016. [10191843] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 11/09/2016 01:10 PM] 11/09/2016 28

2 pg, 187.52 KB Filed clerk order: The opening brief [26] submitted by Charles Nichols is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: not applicable. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate CM/ECF. The Court has reviewed the excerpts of record [27] submitted by Charles Nichols. Within 7 days of this order, filer is ordered to file 4 copies of the excerpts in paper format, with a white cover. The paper copies must be in the format described in 9th Circuit Rule 30-1.6. [10192113] (SML) [Entered: 11/09/2016 02:43 PM] 11/15/2016 29 Filed 4 paper copies of excerpts of record [27] in 2 volume(s) filed by Appellant Charles Nichols. [10198903] (SML) [Entered: 11/16/2016 10:50 AM] 11/16/2016 30 Received 7 paper copies of Opening Brief [26] filed by Charles Nichols. [10199355] (RG) [Entered: 11/16/2016 01:42 PM] 12/14/2016 31

68 pg, 2.7 MB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols petition for rehearing en banc (from 05/01/2014 opinion). Date of service: 12/14/2016. [10232220] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 12/14/2016 12:08 AM] 12/16/2016 32

7 pg, 727.92 KB Filed (ECF) Appellees Kamala D. Harris and Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Motion to extend time to file Answering brief until 02/17/2017. Date of service: 12/16/2016. [10236871] [14-55873] (Eisenberg, Jonathan) [Entered: 12/16/2016 02:07 PM] 12/20/2016 33

12 pg, 860.61 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols response opposing motion ([32] Motion (ECF Filing), [32] Motion (ECF Filing) motion to extend time to file brief). Date of service: 12/20/2016. [10239389] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 12/20/2016 12:14 AM] 01/18/2017 34

1 pg, 33.49 KB Filed order (Appellate Commissioner): Before: Peter L. Shaw, Appellate Commissioner Appellees’ opposed late motion (Docket Entry No. [32]) for an extension of time to file the answering brief is granted. The answering brief is due February 17, 2017. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. Appellant’s request (Docket Entry No. [33]) for sanctions is denied. Appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc (Docket Entry No. [31]) will be addressed in a separate order. (Pro Mo) [10269637] (LL) [Entered: 01/18/2017 10:57 AM] 02/16/2017 35

277 pg, 20.63 MB Submitted (ECF) supplemental excerpts of record. Submitted by Appellee Kamala D. Harris. Date of service: 02/16/2017. [10323651] [14-55873] (Eisenberg, Jonathan) [Entered: 02/16/2017 08:10 PM] 02/17/2017 36

363 pg, 46.02 MB Submitted (ECF) Answering Brief for review. Submitted by Appellees Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and Kamala D. Harris. Date of service: 02/17/2017. [10325346] [14-55873] (Eisenberg, Jonathan) [Entered: 02/17/2017 04:13 PM] 02/21/2017 37

2 pg, 187.11 KB Filed clerk order: The answering brief [36] submitted by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and Kamala D. Harris is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: red. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate CM/ECF. The Court has reviewed the supplemental excerpts of record [35] submitted by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and Kamala D. Harris. Within 7 days of this order, filer is ordered to file 4 copies of the excerpts in paper format, with a white cover. The paper copies must be in the format described in 9th Circuit Rule 30-1.6. [10325899] (SML) [Entered: 02/21/2017 09:08 AM] 02/22/2017 38 Filed (ECF) Streamlined request for extension of time to file Reply Brief by Appellant Charles Nichols. New requested due date is 04/03/2017. [10328370] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 02/22/2017 10:17 AM] 02/22/2017 39 Streamlined request [38] by Appellant Charles Nichols to extend time to file the brief is approved. Amended briefing schedule: the optional reply brief is due 04/03/2017. [10328741] (Witt, Dusty) [Entered: 02/22/2017 12:02 PM] 02/23/2017 40 Received 7 paper copies of Answering Brief [36] filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and Kamala D. Harris. [10330488] (RG) [Entered: 02/23/2017 10:45 AM] 02/23/2017 43 Filed 4 paper copies of supplemental excerpts of record [35] in 1 volume(s) filed by Appellees Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and Kamala D. Harris. [10332807] (SML) [Entered: 02/24/2017 02:25 PM] 02/24/2017 41

42 pg, 1.92 MB Submitted (ECF) Amicus brief for review and filed Motion to become amicus curiae. Submitted by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Date of service: 02/24/2017. [10331950] [14-55873]–[COURT UPDATE: Attached corrected brief and motion. 02/27/2017 by SLM] (Dixon, Megan) [Entered: 02/24/2017 09:42 AM] 02/24/2017 42

42 pg, 318.36 KB Submitted (ECF) Amicus brief for review and filed Motion to become amicus curiae. Submitted by Everytown for Gun Safety. Date of service: 02/24/2017. [10332593] [14-55873] (Gupta, Deepak) [Entered: 02/24/2017 01:38 PM] 02/24/2017 44

43 pg, 194.66 KB Submitted (ECF) Amicus brief for review and filed Motion to become amicus curiae. Submitted by Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Date of service: 02/24/2017. [10333361] [14-55873] (Frankel, Simon) [Entered: 02/24/2017 05:58 PM] 02/27/2017 45 Entered appearance of Amicus Curiae – Pending Everytown for Gun Safety. [10333735] (SML) [Entered: 02/27/2017 09:30 AM] 02/27/2017 46 Entered appearance of Amicus Curiae – Pending Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. [10333740] (SML) [Entered: 02/27/2017 09:32 AM] 02/27/2017 47 Entered appearance of Amicus Curiae – Pending Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. [10335280] (SML) [Entered: 02/27/2017 04:45 PM] 03/01/2017 48

67 pg, 2.36 MB Submitted (ECF) supplemental excerpts of record. Submitted by Appellant Charles Nichols. Date of service: 03/01/2017. [10337392] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 03/01/2017 12:18 AM] 03/01/2017 49

44 pg, 1.91 MB Submitted (ECF) Reply Brief for review. Submitted by Appellant Charles Nichols. Date of service: 03/01/2017. [10337393] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 03/01/2017 12:22 AM] 03/01/2017 50

2 pg, 187.08 KB Filed clerk order: The reply brief [49] submitted by Charles Nichols is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: not applicable. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate CM/ECF. The Court has reviewed the supplemental excerpts of record [48] submitted by Charles Nichols. Within 7 days of this order, filer is ordered to file 4 copies of the excerpts in paper format, with a white cover. The paper copies must be in the format described in 9th Circuit Rule 30-1.6. [10337681] (SML) [Entered: 03/01/2017 09:40 AM] 03/02/2017 51

3 pg, 573.72 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 03/02/2017. [10339445] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 03/02/2017 01:57 AM] 03/06/2017 52 Received 7 paper copies of Reply Brief [49] filed by Charles Nichols. [10344317] (RG) [Entered: 03/06/2017 12:55 PM] 03/06/2017 53

2 pg, 35.59 KB Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LBS): The motion of Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (Docket Entry No. [41]) for leave to file an amicus curiae brief and any response thereto is referred to the panel that will consider the merits of the case for resolution. The motion of Everytown for Gun Safety (Docket Entry No. [42]) for leave to file an amicus curiae brief and any response thereto is referred to the panel that will consider the merits of the case for resolution. The motion of Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (Docket Entry No. [44]) for leave to file an amicus curiae brief and any response thereto is referred to the panel that will consider the merits of the case for resolution. Within 7 days after the date of this order, the above named amici curiae are ordered to file 7 copies of the briefs in paper formats, with green covers, accompanied by certifications (attached to the end of each copy of the briefs) that the briefs are identical to the versions submitted electronically. A sample certification is available on the Court’s website, www.ca9.uscourts.gov at the Electronic Filing – ECF link. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF versions of the briefs created from the word processing applications, not from PACER or Appellate ECF. The paper copies shall be submitted to the principal office of the Clerk. For regular U.S. mail, the address is P.O. Box 193939, San Francisco, CA 94119-3939. For overnight mail, the address is 95 Seventh Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-1526. [10345042] (HC) [Entered: 03/06/2017 03:24 PM] 03/06/2017 54 Filed 4 paper copies of supplemental excerpts of record [48] in 1 volume(s) filed by Appellant Charles Nichols. [10348282] (SML) [Entered: 03/08/2017 11:46 AM] 03/09/2017 55 Received 7 paper copies of Amicus Brief [42] filed by Everytown for Gun Safety. [10350214] (RG) [Entered: 03/09/2017 12:46 PM] 03/09/2017 56 Received 7 paper copies of Amicus Brief [41] filed by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. [10351208] (RG) [Entered: 03/10/2017 08:08 AM] 03/13/2017 57 Received 7 paper copies of Amicus Brief [44] filed by Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. [10353566] (RG) [Entered: 03/13/2017 11:41 AM] 03/17/2017 58

10 pg, 679.43 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 03/17/2017. [10362315] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 03/17/2017 08:22 PM] 03/17/2017 59

61 pg, 1017.42 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 03/17/2017. [10362318] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 03/17/2017 08:25 PM] 03/17/2017 60

11 pg, 632.52 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 03/17/2017. [10362320] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 03/17/2017 08:29 PM] 03/17/2017 61

77 pg, 3.49 MB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 03/17/2017. [10362322] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 03/17/2017 08:38 PM] 03/20/2017 62 No judge has requested a vote to hear this case initially en banc within the time allowed by General Order 5.2a. The request is therefore denied. [10362530] (HH) [Entered: 03/20/2017 08:57 AM] 04/06/2017 63

2 pg, 504.31 KB Filed (ECF) Appellee Kamala D. Harris citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 04/06/2017. [10387343] [14-55873] (Eisenberg, Jonathan) [Entered: 04/06/2017 05:11 PM] 04/06/2017 64

2 pg, 627.76 KB Filed (ECF) Appellee Kamala D. Harris citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 04/06/2017. [10387426] [14-55873] (Eisenberg, Jonathan) [Entered: 04/06/2017 09:39 PM] 05/15/2017 65

13 pg, 729.28 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 05/15/2017. [10433465] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 05/15/2017 07:34 AM] 05/21/2017 66

8 pg, 800.43 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 05/21/2017. [10442491] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 05/21/2017 06:39 PM] 05/22/2017 67

3 pg, 577.24 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 05/22/2017. [10443985] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 05/22/2017 03:51 PM] 05/23/2017 68

3 pg, 579.67 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 05/23/2017. [10446163] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 05/23/2017 08:26 PM] 05/30/2017 69

18 pg, 631.24 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 05/30/2017. [10451305] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 05/30/2017 01:15 AM] 06/12/2017 70

16 pg, 662.08 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 06/12/2017. [10467915] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/12/2017 01:17 AM] 06/15/2017 71

6 pg, 872.97 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 06/15/2017. [10475904] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/15/2017 09:26 PM] 06/17/2017 72

3 pg, 572.48 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 06/17/2017. [10477673] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/17/2017 01:39 PM] 06/20/2017 73

3 pg, 578.79 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 06/20/2017. [10480092] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/20/2017 12:26 AM] 06/21/2017 74

6 pg, 944.21 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 06/21/2017. [10481913] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/21/2017 12:08 AM] 06/21/2017 75

3 pg, 576.39 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Correspondence: Please take notice that Xavier Becerra is now the California Attorney General. Per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 43 c(2), he was automatically substituted as a party in this action, replacing his predecessor Kamala D. Harris, on January 24, 2017.. Date of service: 06/21/2017 [10481914] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/21/2017 02:27 AM] 06/21/2017 76 Appellee Kamala D. Harris in 14-55873 substituted by Appellee Xavier Becerra in 14-55873 [10483151] (Walker, Synitha) [Entered: 06/21/2017 03:36 PM] 06/28/2017 77

4 pg, 662.79 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Correspondence: Plaintiff-Appellant Nichols identified in his Statement of Related Cases on the last page of his initial brief George Young, Jr. v. State of Hawaii, et al No.: 12-17808. Both dockets should be updated to reflect the related case.. Date of service: 06/28/2017 [10490254] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/28/2017 01:01 AM] 06/29/2017 78

51 pg, 797.48 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 06/29/2017. [10492786] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/29/2017 02:17 PM] 07/01/2017 79

69 pg, 943.69 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/01/2017. [10495150] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/01/2017 08:26 AM] 07/01/2017 80

3 pg, 579.79 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/01/2017. [10495153] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/01/2017 11:21 AM] 07/02/2017 81

24 pg, 695.79 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/02/2017. [10495172] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/02/2017 03:16 AM] 07/04/2017 82

7 pg, 692.08 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Motion to hear this case before the panel which will hear case George Young, Jr. v. State of Hawaii, et al No. 12-17808. Date of service: 07/04/2017. [10496744] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/04/2017 12:23 AM] 07/04/2017 83

14 pg, 701.73 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/04/2017. [10496761] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/04/2017 02:00 PM] 07/05/2017 84 COURT DELETED INCORRECT/DUPLICATE ENTRY. Notice about deletion sent to case participants registered for electronic filing. Correct Entry: [83]. Original Text: Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/05/2017. [10496770] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/05/2017 02:01 AM] 07/05/2017 85

14 pg, 709.17 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/05/2017. [10497194] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/05/2017 10:23 AM] 07/06/2017 86

3 pg, 569.92 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/06/2017. [10499142] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/06/2017 11:13 AM] 07/07/2017 87

8 pg, 1.87 MB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/07/2017. [10500540] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/07/2017 10:05 AM] 07/07/2017 88

1 pg, 100.79 KB Filed (ECF) Appellee Xavier Becerra citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/07/2017. [10501273] [14-55873] (Eisenberg, Jonathan) [Entered: 07/07/2017 02:19 PM] 07/10/2017 89

3 pg, 577.66 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/10/2017. [10502706] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/10/2017 11:59 AM] 07/14/2017 90

8 pg, 893.52 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/14/2017. [10509955] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/14/2017 09:58 PM] 07/19/2017 91

7 pg, 1.59 MB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/19/2017. [10515142] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/19/2017 07:47 PM] 07/21/2017 92

74 pg, 3.73 MB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/21/2017. [10517884] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 07/21/2017 09:38 PM] 10/10/2017 93

1 pg, 33.75 KB Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LBS): No judge has requested a vote to hear this case initially en banc within the time allowed by General Order 5.2a. Appellant’s request (Docket Entry No. [31]) is therefore denied. Appellant’s motion (Docket Entry No. [82]) to schedule oral argument with a related case is denied. [10610747] (OC) [Entered: 10/10/2017 10:48 AM] 10/10/2017 94 This case is being considered for an upcoming oral argument calendar in Pasadena Please review the Pasadena sitting dates for February 2018 and the two subsequent sitting months in that location at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/court_sessions. If you have an unavoidable conflict on any of the dates, please inform the court within 3 days of this notice, using CM/ECF (Type of Document: File Correspondence to Court; Subject: regarding availability for oral argument). When setting your argument date, the court will try to work around unavoidable conflicts; the court is not able to accommodate mere scheduling preferences. You will receive notice that your case has been assigned to a calendar approximately 10 weeks before the scheduled oral argument date. If the parties wish to discuss settlement before an argument date is set, they should jointly request referral to the mediation unit by filing a letter within 3 days of this notice, using CM/ECF (Type of Document: File Correspondence to Court; Subject: request for mediation).[10610781] (AW) [Entered: 10/10/2017 11:01 AM] 10/13/2017 95

1 pg, 252.4 KB Filed (ECF) Appellee Xavier Becerra Correspondence: Regarding possible dates for oral argument. Date of service: 10/13/2017 [10617794] [14-55873] (Eisenberg, Jonathan) [Entered: 10/13/2017 04:25 PM] 10/21/2017 96

3 pg, 574.55 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 10/21/2017. [10626757] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 10/21/2017 01:07 PM] 11/17/2017 97

3 pg, 577.95 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 11/17/2017. [10659678] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 11/17/2017 04:40 PM] 11/17/2017 98

3 pg, 575.77 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 11/17/2017. [10659686] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 11/17/2017 04:43 PM] 11/18/2017 99

3 pg, 578.83 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 11/18/2017. [10659818] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 11/18/2017 01:08 AM] 12/07/2017 100 Notice of Oral Argument on Thursday, February 15, 2018 – 09:00 A.M. – Courtroom 3 – Pasadena CA. View the Oral Argument Calendar for your case here. Be sure to review the GUIDELINES for important information about your hearing, including when to arrive (30 minutes before the hearing time) and when and how to submit additional citations (filing electronically as far in advance of the hearing as possible). When you have reviewed the calendar, download the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE form, complete the form, and file it via Appellate ECF or return the completed form to: PASADENA Office.

[10683244] (Witt, Dusty) [Entered: 12/07/2017 04:45 PM] 12/07/2017 101

1 pg, 650.67 KB Filed (ECF) Acknowledgment of hearing notice. Location: Pasadena. Filed by Party Charles Nichols. [10683341] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 12/07/2017 06:20 PM] 12/11/2017 102

1 pg, 470.59 KB Filed (ECF) Acknowledgment of hearing notice. Location: Pasadena. Filed by Attorney Mr. Jonathan Michael Eisenberg for Appellees Xavier Becerra and Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. [10686500] [14-55873] (Eisenberg, Jonathan) [Entered: 12/11/2017 03:46 PM] 12/31/2017 103

21 pg, 898.77 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 12/31/2017. [10708645] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 12/31/2017 03:51 PM] 01/08/2018 104

17 pg, 3.26 MB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 01/08/2018. [10717344] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 01/08/2018 05:28 PM] 01/08/2018 105

5 pg, 953.84 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Correspondence: Notice of Amendment to California Penal Code section 26400 which went into effect on January 1, 2018 – Assembly Bill 7. Date of service: 01/08/2018 [10717348] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 01/08/2018 05:35 PM] 01/08/2018 106

16 pg, 998.56 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Correspondence: Notice of California Assembly Bill 424 – Possession of a firearm in a school zone which went into effect on January 1, 2018.. Date of service: 01/08/2018 [10717361] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 01/08/2018 05:40 PM] 02/15/2018 107 ARGUED AND SUBMITTED TO MARSHA S. BERZON, JAY S. BYBEE and SHARON L. GLEASON. [10766282] (Witt, Dusty) [Entered: 02/15/2018 04:19 PM] 02/16/2018 108

1 pg, 8.4 MB Filed Audio recording of oral argument.

Note: Video recordings of public argument calendars are available on the Court’s website, at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/

[10767964] (Witt, Dusty) [Entered: 02/16/2018 03:13 PM] 02/27/2018 109

1 pg, 42.16 KB Filed order (MARSHA S. BERZON, JAY S. BYBEE and SHARON L. GLEASON) Submission of this case is vacated pending issuance of a decision in Young v. State of Hawai’i, No. 12-17808. [10779630] (OC) [Entered: 02/27/2018 03:07 PM] 03/09/2018 110

3 pg, 579.67 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 03/09/2018. [10793750] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 03/09/2018 05:58 PM] 05/04/2018 111

99 pg, 990.87 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 05/04/2018. [10862853] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 05/04/2018 08:13 PM] 05/05/2018 112

28 pg, 681.17 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 05/05/2018. [10862882] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 05/05/2018 07:20 PM] 05/25/2018 113

14 pg, 768.86 KB Filed (ECF) Appellee Xavier Becerra citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 05/25/2018. [10886404] [14-55873] (Eisenberg, Jonathan) [Entered: 05/25/2018 02:29 PM] 05/31/2018 114

3 pg, 569.15 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 05/31/2018. [10890574] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 05/31/2018 12:50 AM] 06/01/2018 115

24 pg, 732.71 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 06/01/2018. [10894131] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/01/2018 04:29 PM] 06/01/2018 116

35 pg, 805.51 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 06/01/2018. [10894135] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/01/2018 04:31 PM] 06/14/2018 117

64 pg, 603.14 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 06/14/2018. [10908517] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 06/14/2018 09:46 AM] 12/06/2018 118

4 pg, 631.35 KB Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Nichols Unopposed Motion for miscellaneous relief [Plaintiff-appellants unopposed motion to clarify the submission status of this appeal.]. Date of service: 12/06/2018. [11111621] [14-55873] (Nichols, Charles) [Entered: 12/06/2018 01:01 AM] 12/07/2018 119

1 pg, 257.62 KB Filed order (MARSHA S. BERZON, JAY S. BYBEE and SHARON L. GLEASON) Submission of this case remains vacated pending issuance of the mandate in Young v. Hawai’i, No. 12-17808. [11114075] (OC) [Entered: 12/07/2018 01:26 PM] 03/11/2019 120

3 pg, 34.83 KB Filed (ECF) Appellee Xavier Becerra Correspondence: Notice of substitution of public officer. Date of service: 03/11/2019. [11223236] [14-55873]–[COURT UPDATE: Edited docket text to reflect content of filing. 03/11/2019 by RY] (Eisenberg, Jonathan) [Entered: 03/11/2019 03:03 PM] 03/11/2019 121 Appellee Edmund G. Brown Jr. in 14-55873 substituted by Appellee Gavin Newsom in 14-55873 [11223393] (QDL) [Entered: 03/11/2019 03:50 PM]

Update – January 9th, 2020, – SCOTUS scheduled the following handgun carry case to its 2nd conference: Brian Kirk Malpasso, et al., Petitioners v. William M. Pallozzi, in His Official Capacity as Maryland Secretary of State Police – Jan 08 2020 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2020. Ironically, despite the cert petition being limited to handguns, this particular cert petition is one of the better (least terrible) of the 2A cert petitions filed thus far. The question presented is: Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit typical, law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense in any manner. There are several other “carry” cases that SCOTUS could have scheduled for a conference after NYSRPA v NYC was argued but didn’t. I am going to get my hopes up, for the very first time since McDonald v. City of Chicago was published.

Update – January 2nd, 2020, – Oral argument before the United States Supreme Court in the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, et al v. City of New York took place one month ago today. Here is a link to the oral argument and transcript -> https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-280

Update – December 16, 2019, – Today, SCOTUS denied the cert petition in City of Boise v. Robert Martin, et al. Cert, and rightly so. The City of Boise enacted a law that essentially makes it a crime to be homeless. The 9th circuit court of appeals partially invalidated the ban in an extremely narrow decision that only enjoins the law if there are no shelter beds available. The United States has many problems, homelessness and drug addiction are two of those problems. Making it a crime to be homeless or an addict is not only not the solution, it is not a solution.

There were no Second Amendment cases of any substance denied today. None were granted either. None of the pending 2A cert petitions has been assigned to a future conference.

Update – December 13, 2019, – SCOTUS granted a few cert petitions this afternoon. None was a 2A case and none of the pending #2ndAmendment cases has been scheduled for a conference. The next conference is on January 10th.

It is still possible that one or more Second Amendment cert petitions will be scheduled for the January 10th (or 17th) conference but it is highly unlikely that any cert petition granted at such a late date would be heard in oral argument before the end of the current term in June of 2020.

I haven’t a clue as to what will happen next or what is likely to happen next at this point and anyone who claims otherwise is a fool or a liar (or both).

One could list the possible outcomes but that would be pointless.

You will have to wait and see whereas those of us with 2A cases in the lower courts will have to prepare for those possible outcomes.

Those with cert petitions already filed can do nothing more.

Update – December 10, 2019, – 1:35 AM. I just finished searching the documents filed in the cases scheduled for the SCOTUS private conferences of December 13th, and January 10, 2020. Although there will undoubtedly be additional petitions added before the January 10th conference is held, there are no new 2nd Amendment cert petitions scheduled for a conference as of this writing.

Update – December 9, 2019, – NYSRPA is still with us as are the carry cases. It was pointed out to me that one of the possession of firearms cert petitions was denied today. That is not a good sign. It will probably not be until tonight or tomorrow that I will have gone through all of the denied petitions for #2A cases denied today.

Jorge L. Medina, v. William P. Barr, Attorney General – Cert filed on August 30, 2019. Response due November 4, 2019. The question presented is: Whether the Second Amendment secures Jorge Medina’s right to possess arms, notwithstanding his conviction for making a false statement to a lending institution 29 years ago. Response filed November 4, 2019. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/6/2019. Second Amendment. Cert Denied on 12/9/2019.

In my December 1st update I wrote: ”

The Chief Justice, if he is in the majority, will assign the case to a justice for a decision, or he will write the decision. If the Chief Justice is in the minority, then the most senior justice in the majority decides who will write the decision.

A procedural factoid is that either Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Thomas could join the majority and assign the case to himself and then gut the decision but this does not appear to happen.”

I should have added that one reason this does not appear to happen is that any justice who assigns to himself the decision to be written still needs to get four other justices to sign off on his majority decision. I suspect the more likely reason is because engaging in this gamesmanship would be political and the justices view themselves above that.

Update – December 5, 2019, – Tomorrow, Friday, December 6, 2019, the justices will hold a private conference where the fate of NYSRPA and every other case which was argued and taken under submission for a decision will be decided and assigned to a justice for a decision, if not outright dismissed. There are 293 other cases where the justices will vote on whether or not to grant their cert petitions. In reality, most of the cert petitions are D.O.A. because no justice asked for the cert petition to be voted on at the conference. The last conference for this year will take place on Friday the 13th. The next “discuss” conference after that is January 10th, 2020. If SCOTUS is going to grant some other Second Amendment cert petition and have an oral argument this term then it will have to do so pretty soon. The first week of January is typically the cutoff date.

Update – December 1, 2019, – Tomorrow, Monday, December 2, 2019, at 10:00 AM Eastern Time, oral argument will begin in NYSRPA v. NYC. Oral argument is scheduled to last for one hour.

Arguing for the For petitioners (NYSRPA et al) is Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C.; and Jeffrey B. Wall, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States,as amicus curiae.)

Arguing for respondents NYC et al) is Richard P. Dearing, New York, N. Y.

An interesting factoid about U.S. Supreme Court procedure (according to Justice Kagan) is that the justices never discuss a case until the end of the week, after which the oral arguments have concluded in all cases argued that week.

The “Discuss” conferences which typically take place at the end of the week wherein justices vote on whether or not to grant a cert petition is a misnomer given that the justices do not actually discuss the case. Instead, beginning with the Chief Justice and working its way around the table in order of seniority each of the justices votes on whether or not to grant the petition and why.

The questions by the justices in oral argument, although directed at the counsel for the parties, are intended for their fellow justices.

The oral argument transcripts are posted on the SCOTUS website on the same day an argument is heard by the Supreme Court.

The audio recordings of all oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court of the United States are available to the public at the end of each argument week. The audio recordings are posted on Fridays after Conference.

The Court will hear oral argument in 12 cases (actually 15 but 3 were consolidated with other cases) next week. As you might suspect, the justices do not spend a great deal of time discussing the merits of each case. There is some discussion, more than simply stating which way each justice will vote and why, but there will be a vote in the end of week conference.

The Chief Justice, if he is in the majority, will assign the case to a justice for a decision, or he will write the decision. If the Chief Justice is in the minority, then the most senior justice in the majority decides who will write the decision.

A procedural factoid is that either Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Thomas could join the majority and assign the case to himself and then gut the decision but this does not appear to happen.

Justice Ginsburg is the next most senior justice in line from Justice Thomas, followed by Justice Breyer should Justice Ginsburg be unable to participate for any reason.

With only one exception, the last Justice Stevens in District of Columbia v. Heller, the justices do not lobby fellow justices to take a position. They once did but that appears no longer to be the case.

Today, justices try to persuade justices on the opposite side to change their votes by writing a persuasive dissent. Justice Kagan said that she uses legal arguments favored by a particular justice to persuade him, via her dissent, to come over to her side.

Justice Ginsburg said she once persuaded Justice Scalia to switch sides from the side he took during the conference because of the argument she made in her dissent.

Finally, transcripts do not, and cannot, reveal the nuances in how a justice asks a question. A question can be asked earnestly, in can be asked facetiously, it can be asked ironically, or rhetorically or in any number of ways other than literally.

If the case is dismissed as moot then I suspect that the decision (more likely an Order dismissing the case as moot) will come quickly. If there is a decision, and the decision is a sharply divided 5-4 then I suspect we will not have the decision until the last day of the term ending on June 29th, 2020.

The longer it is for the pending 2A cert petitions to be scheduled for a conference the more likely it is the decision in NYSRPA v. NYC will be dispositive in those cases.

Unfortunately, we will not know in which way unless one or more of them have their cert petition granted.

Update – November 29, 2019, – The United States Supreme Court neither granted nor denied any Second Amendment cert petition as a result of last Friday’s conference according to its Orders List released on Monday. Oral argument in NYSRPA v. NYC is still scheduled for Monday, the transcript will be released later in the day. Audio will be released at the end of the week.

Update – November 22, 2019, – The United States Supreme Court held its last conference of November today. I will not know if any 2A cert petition was granted or denied until next week when the Orders List is published. SCOTUS next meets on December 6th. There is one 2A case scheduled for that conference, the first after NYSRPA v NYC. We need to keep an eye on the dockets for the other pending 2A cert petitions. They will not be granted or denied until they have been scheduled for at least one more conference.

Update – November 15, 2019, – The United States Supreme Court granted the cert petition in Walker v. US (see below). The Federal Government filed a letter in NYSRPA arguing that NYSRPA v. NYC is not moot.

James Walker, Petitioner v. United States. Cert filed on September 19, 2019. Cert granted on November 15, 2019. Question presented: Whether a criminal offense that can be committed with a mens rea of recklessness can qualify as a ”violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e). Mens Rea.

Update – November 14, 2019, – The cert petitions to watch near the bottom 1/3 of this page have increased by two. One is about guns and drugs so it is D.O.A. The other is an attempt to shut down Armslist. It has a chance of being granted. It is scheduled for its second conference on November 22nd.

Update – November 12, 2019, – The Supreme Court today denied the Remington v. Soto product liability cert petition. This was not a surprise. SCOTUS has allowed nuttier cases than this to continue in the trial court. Other than that, there were not any grants today. Nor were there any denials of any 2A cert petitions (Remington involved guns but there was no 2A question presented). I have added a countdown timer on this page to the NYSRPA v. NYC oral argument.

Update – October 21, 2019, – The Supreme Court today denied the cert petition in Joey Little, Petitioner v. United States – Cert filed on September 18, 2019. Waiver filed on September 27th. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/18/2019. No response was requested which made this petition D.O.A. Second Amendment (“large” capacity magazines, felons, sentencing). Cert Petition Denied on October 21, 2019. Although Mr. Little’s cert petition would have likely been denied, there was a significant defect in the cert petition. The question presented to the court did not mention the Second Amendment even though Mr. Little had clearly raised a Second Amendment claim on appeal.

There is a short-barrelled shotgun case that survived its first conference on October 1st and has now been scheduled for its second conference on November 1st. The case is Ronald F. White, Jr., Petitioner v. United States (see pending cert petition section below).

Update – October 18, 2019, – The Supreme Court today requested a response in the handgun “carry case” out of Maryland, Malpasso v. Pallozi. Pallozi had filed a waiver of his right to respond on October 8th. The petition was distributed for the November 1st Conference on October 16th. I am surprised that the respondent (Pallozi) had filed a waiver. If his purpose was to delay then he could have asked for up to 60 days worth of extensions to file his Brief In Opposition. Now, Pallozi has a filing deadline of November 18th and a Court which will look less favorable on any request for an extension. In any event, the cert petition will survive the November 1st Conference because the justices do not receive a copy of the cert petition until the Brief in Opposition is filed. Also, the justices have two weeks from the date they receive the Brief In Opposition before the justices vote on whether or not to grant the petition. All of this puts as past the December 2nd oral argument in NYSRPA v. NYC and so we can expect that Malpasso, like all of the other carry cases, will be held and not rescheduled for a conference until after NYSRPA is argued and decided (internally). If NYSRPA wins then SCOTUS could simply GVR (Grant-Vacate-Remand) all of the Second Amendment cert petitions being held for a do-over in light of the decision in NYSRPA. My hope is that SCOTUS will grant a “carry” case this term.

Update – October 15, 2019, – There were four Second Amendment cert petitions denied of those I have been tracking. I don’t track all of them for a variety of reasons. Three of the four denied today were predictably D.O.A. One was a long shot but it was denied. There are plenty more for SCOTUS to grant. Moreover, SCOTUS has not denied any of the significant Second Amendment cases this term.

EDIT:

I just read the cert petition in Culp v. Raoul out of Illinois. It turned out there wasn’t much to read. There is no circuit split argued in the petition for a writ of certiorari even though the Wrenn decision handed the petitioners one on a silver platter. And simply stating, “The issues raised by the decision below are important…” is not a SCOTUS Rule 10 compliant statement or argument in support of this petition.

Although the petition presumes that there is a right to carry concealed in public, it does not appear to be making that legal argument. Instead, it seems to be seeking solely a (procedural) “due process remedy,” an application to apply for a concealed carry permit.

It had been some time since I last looked at this case. I had forgotten that 430 ILCS 66/40 states that non-residents do not need an Illinois permit inside of their vehicle and unless Illinois law has changed, they don’t need a permit to carry a firearm in their home, place of lodging or on their property.

PETITION denied.

Update – October 9, 2019, – The Baird v. Becerra handgun Open Carry hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and on the state’s motion to dismiss was canceled minutes before it was scheduled to begin yesterday (October 8th). Mr. Baird’s attorney objected to yet another postponement (the hearing was originally scheduled for August). The hearing was rescheduled to this morning.

I had flown up yesterday morning to attend the hearing. After it was canceled, one of the organizers of the 2A rally outside of the courtroom interviewed me. Despite my not having slept in over 24 hours, I think the interview went pretty well.

Update – October 7, 2019, – The ORDERS LIST is out. I have updated the list of cert petitions located at the bottom 1/3 of this Status Page. The cert petitions I predicted were D.O.A., were denied. The 4A/concealed carry (criminal) cert petitions were denied except for one involving the carrying of a single round of ammunition (Scheduled for the Oct 11 Conference). The civil handgun carry cases which were scheduled for the last conference do not appear on the list which means they will either be rescheduled to a future conference or held pending a decision in some other case. The “suggestion of mootness” in NYSRPA v. NYC was denied but the parties were informed that mootness would be a topic of the oral argument and so they should be prepared.

Update – September 30, 2019, – The Malpasso handgun carry cert petition out of Maryland (4th circuit) was filed on September 26th. The docket did not appear until today. See the bottom 1/3 of this page for links to the SCOTUS dockets.

Update – September 25, 2019, – The SCOTUS “Long Conference” which typically takes place the last Monday of September before the justices convene for the first official conference of the new term which begins on October 1st won’t be taking place this year. I suppose it is because the last Monday of September is the day before October 1st this year. In any event, there are over 1,700 petitions scheduled for the October 1st conference. The last time there was a long conference the day before the 1st conference of the new term, there was a miscellaneous Orders List released that week, an Orders List released on the same day as the 1st October conference, and an Orders List released the following Monday. Today is September 25th, the last miscellaneous Orders List was released on September 11th. We will have to wait and see what happens this term. I suspect that there will be some grants on October 1st and an Orders List released the following Monday morning, October 7th.

Update – September 6, 2019, – the hearing for the Baird v. Becerra handgun Open Carry lawsuit has been rescheduled to October 8, 2019. I bought a new ticket. This time my flight arrives three hours before the hearing is supposed to begin (10:00 AM) and leaves an hour and a half after the courthouse closes (4:00 PM). They are planning for another rally on October 8th. The September 6th rally in front of the courthouse drew a couple of hundred people.

2:19-cv-00617-KJM-AC Baird et al v. Becerra

Kimberly J. Mueller, presiding

Allison Claire, referral

Date filed: 04/09/2019

Date of last filing: 09/06/2019

History

Doc.

No. Dates Description 22 Filed & Entered: 09/06/2019 Statement 21 Filed & Entered: 08/28/2019 Minute Order 20 Filed & Entered: 08/02/2019 Opposition to Motion 19 Filed & Entered: 07/30/2019 Opposition to Motion 17 Filed & Entered: 07/16/2019 Minute Order 18 Filed & Entered: 07/16/2019 Amended Document 16 Filed & Entered: 07/11/2019 Request 14 Filed & Entered: 07/08/2019 Motion for Preliminary Injunction 15 Filed & Entered: 07/08/2019 Memorandum in Support of Motion 13 Filed & Entered: 06/27/2019 Stipulation and Order 12 Filed & Entered: 06/21/2019 Stipulation and Proposed Order 11 Filed & Entered: 06/07/2019 Minute Order 10 Filed & Entered: 06/06/2019 Motion to Dismiss 9 Filed & Entered: 05/08/2019 Stipulation 8 Filed & Entered: 05/02/2019 Summons Returned Executed 6 Filed & Entered: 05/01/2019 Summons Returned Executed 7 Filed & Entered: 05/01/2019 Certificate of Service 5 Filed & Entered: 04/30/2019 Pro Hac Vice Order 3 Filed & Entered: 04/10/2019 Summons 4 Filed & Entered: 04/10/2019 Civil New Case Documents for KJM Filed & Entered: 04/09/2019 Payment for Pro Hac Vice Application Filed & Entered: 04/09/2019 Payment for Civil Case 1 Filed & Entered: 04/09/2019 Complaint 2 Filed & Entered: 04/09/2019 Pro Hac Vice Application and Proposed Order

Update – August 21, 2019, – the presiding judge in the handgun Open Carry lawsuit, Baird v. Becerra, set a hearing date of September 6th at 10:00 AM back on July 14th. After much hesitation and going back and forth, I finally bought an airline ticket in order to attend the hearing and rally. I bought the ticket well enough in advance to get a cheap ticket. Unfortunately, the judge has now pushed the hearing back toward the end of the day which means it likely won’t be heard until late afternoon. I had booked my return flight for early afternoon. Changing my return flight at this late date would have turned my cheap ticket into an expensive ticket. Fortunately, I bought my ticket from Southwest which means I was able to cancel my reservation and am now able to apply the $131 roundtrip fare to some future flight. There is a very small chance that I will take Amtrak or Greyhound the night before but it is unlikely. My primary reason for going was to attend the motions hearing, and the older I get, the harder it is for me to travel. There is still the rally and if you have already made travel arrangements then I encourage you to attend and take photos.

Update – August 7, 2019, – NYSRPA et al v. NYC et al has been “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.” That is not a good sign. The other four Second Amendment cases held over from last term are still pending.

Update – July 31, 2019, – My California Open Carry lawsuit was filed in Federal court 2,800 days ago.

Update – July 28, 2019, – At the NRA website for the Michelle Flanagan et al v. Becerra Fake California Open Carry lawsuit you will notice that the transcript for the November 6, 2017 hearing is nowhere to be found. And for good reason. The NRA lawyers flat out state that California can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry. They made exactly the same argument in Peruta v. San Diego and lost. Here is a link to the transcript. 109 – Flanagan v. Becerra Transcript for proceedings held on 11-6-2017

Update – July 17, 2019, – At the end of the 2019 Cert Petitions section toward the bottom of this page I have appended sections on Cert Petitions Likely to be Filed, On Appeal, waiting for SCOTUS to decide NYSRPA v. NYC, and Still in the District Courts

Update – July 10, 2019, – A motion for a preliminary injunction was filed on Monday in Baird et al v. Becerra. The hearing is scheduled for September 6th. Preliminary injunction appeals are given priority scheduling for a hearing and a decision, and the court of appeals decision on the preliminary injunction can be appealed to SCOTUS. I hope the plaintiffs filed their motion for a preliminary injunction for that very reason. We will have to wait and see. Here is a link to the Baird et al v Becerra Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Update – June 27, 2019, – Another SCOTUS term has ended, more or less, with the question of whether or not there is a right to bear arms left unresolved. SCOTUS neither granted nor denied the cert petitions in Rogers and Grewel, a decision in either by SCOTUS would answer that question. The same is true of Mance (ban on the interstate sale of handguns) and Pena (a challenge to California’s prohibition on the sale of handguns not on the state’s approved roster). It is safe to assume that these four Second Amendment petitions are being held for a decision in NYSRPA v. NYC. I couldn’t say that with any certainty until today because another explanation as to why they were being held is that one or more justices were writing a dissent to the denial of their cert petitions. The Justices will return for a “Long Conference” to be held the final week of September after which they might release a Miscellaneous Orders list granting cert petitions. The Court officially reconvenes on October 1st when the Justices hold their first private conference of the 2019 Term. On that day, the justices will release its first Orders list for the new term which will have listed around a 1,000 or more cert petitions d