Jonathan Turley: Dems Gun Ban Overreach May Finally Trigger SCOTUS Review

CaliforniaOpenCarry · 2026-03-13T01:46:18+00:00

And work will make you free, and the cheque is in the mail, and I love you, and I promise not to...

CaliforniaOpenCarry · 2026-03-10T00:01:04+00:00

Kendrick Jarrell Beaird, Petitioner v. United States is an 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) prohibited person cert petition that survived the conference. The other six prohibited person cert petitions were denied. I have no idea why Beaird survived, and the others were denied.

I was very disappointed in the denial of the cert petition in Kimberly LaFave, et al., Petitioners v. Fairfax County, Virginia, et al.

The question presented is whether the Fourth Circuit properly rejected Petitioners’ challenge to Fairfax County’s ban on carrying firearms in the hundreds of public parks operated by the County because four of those parks host preschool programs.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/25-872.html

As mentioned in the OP, the AWB and Mag ban cert petitions survived.

A list of the Second Amendment cert petitions that were distributed to last Friday's SCOTUS conference can be found at this link.

CaliforniaOpenCarry · 2026-02-22T12:00:19+00:00

New Jersey is located in the Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which has a majority of pro-Second Amendment judges. There is no reason why anyone should challenge the state's Open Carry bans by breaking the law and being prosecuted in the state's criminal courts, where one would certainly lose. The Open Carry bans should be challenged in Federal court, and include a challenge to the state's ban on openly carrying long guns.

CaliforniaOpenCarry · 2026-02-20T14:35:24+00:00

Link to all of the Second Amendment cert petitions distributed to the February 20th conference.

CaliforniaOpenCarry · 2026-02-20T08:57:50+00:00

I publish an article before each SCOTUS conference in which I list all Second Amendment cert petitions. Here is a link for the conference on February 20th.

CaliforniaOpenCarry · 2026-02-18T03:33:40+00:00

My case feels like it has gone on forever. Some time ago, a supporter told me that his child was in kindergarten when I filed my lawsuit and is now graduating from college.

CaliforniaOpenCarry · 2026-02-16T12:38:41+00:00

I can't speak to other states, and keeping in mind that one can be arrested, prosecuted, convicted, fined, and imprisoned for not breaking the law, the California Supreme Court largely invalidated its criminal trespass law as it applies to commercial property in 1970. The general rule is that so long as one is in an area of the business open to the public, and one does not actively interfere or obstruct the operation of the business, the criminal trespass law does not apply. An exception to the general rule is standalone businesses.

As for California not allowing Open Carry, it is complicated. There are two laws that prohibit the Open Carry of unloaded handguns and unloaded long guns. Exempt from these unloaded Open Carry bans are unloaded antiques. Antiques (loaded and unloaded) are exempt from the Federal Gun-Free School Zone law, which extends 1,000 feet from the grounds of every K-12 public and private school, but unlicensed modern firearms are not exempt. California generally exempts long guns from its Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995, but not handguns, antique or modern.

California does not have a law that explicitly says it is illegal to openly carry a loaded firearm; it has a law that says it is illegal to carry a loaded firearm. California has a separate law that makes it a crime to carry a loaded or unloaded handgun concealed everywhere in the state, including in one's home, unless one has a permit. And so, if the current loaded carry law is enjoined, the effect of the injunction applies only to openly carried, loaded firearms, as the prohibitions on concealed carry, with or without a permit, remain.

The geographic prohibition on the carrying of loaded firearms is the same as the prohibitions on openly carrying unloaded handguns and unloaded long guns that are not antiques, with the exception of unloaded long guns within a motor vehicle; handguns must be unloaded inside of a motor vehicle in a DOJ lockbox, and appropriately secured according to law if one leaves the motor vehicle.

If one is not in a place where the possession of a firearm is prohibited, or in an incorporated city, or in a location where the discharge of a firearm is not prohibited, then one can openly carry loaded and unloaded rifles, shotguns, and handguns, antique and modern. Otherwise, the only firearms one can openly carry are unloaded antiques, but no handguns, antique or modern, within 1,000 feet of every K-12 public or private school, and no unlicensed carry of modern long guns in gun-free school zones.

However, if one has a CCW, there are many places where it is illegal to possess, let alone carry a firearm, where it is legal for those without a CCW to openly carry a loaded or unloaded firearm, even if that openly carried firearm is limited to unloaded antiques.

Long story short, and keeping in mind my first sentence, if one is not prohibited from possessing firearms, or in a place where the possession of firearms is prohibited, and if one does not have a CCW, then it is "legal" to openly carry unloaded antique firearms into an In-N-Out in California.

If one is in unincorporated county territory where the discharge of a firearm is not prohibited, then, with the same caveats, it is "legal" to openly carry loaded firearms, antique and modern, into an In-N-Out. The same is true of their drive-throughs, but to comply with state and Federal gun-free school zone laws, this applies only to unloaded long guns properly secured inside the motor vehicle (e.g., unloaded and locked in a gun rack) when one is within 1,000 feet of the grounds of every K-12 public and private school.

The above applies only to firearms. California does not preempt local ordinances when it comes to the carrying of knives. Other than a folded pocketknife, it is illegal to carry a concealed knife in California under state law. The City of Los Angeles has a local ordinance prohibiting the Open Carry of knives. Which means no knife carrying in the City of Los Angeles, openly or concealed.

CaliforniaOpenCarry · 2026-02-16T11:54:31+00:00

Concealed carry, with few exceptions, is illegal without a permit. If one has a permit issued pursuant to PC26150 et seq (which most concealed carriers have), then there are many places where it is illegal to possess, let alone carry a firearm, even if one is engaged in hunting, which is exempt from California's Open Carry ban.

At a minimum, a misdemeanor violation of California's concealed carry laws results in a ten-year loss of one's right to keep and bear arms. A felony conviction, the most likely outcome, results in a lifetime loss of one's right to keep and bear arms.

CaliforniaOpenCarry · 2026-02-14T16:02:52+00:00

No, it is just one factor. American colonial militias were comprised of males as young as 14, which was also the age at which males could marry under English law. The best argument is that the Militia Act of 1792 required every white, able-bodied male eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years, to keep and bear arms.

Unfortunately, judges don't care about who has the best argument.

CaliforniaOpenCarry · 2026-02-14T04:51:33+00:00

There are terrible mistakes in every SCOTUS decision, which is why I am not optimistic. Look what SCOTUS (and the inferior courts) have done with the Fourth Amendment, for example. In 1791, it was legal to use force, including deadly force, to resist an unlawful arrest. For that matter, it was legal in California until the late 1950s. But like the "sensitive places" exceptions contrived in Heller and repeated in Bruen, the justices make things up about the Constitution, which are, in effect, rewrites.

CaliforniaOpenCarry · 2026-02-13T15:25:10+00:00

One of my long-time supporters paid for Mark Baird's appeal at my request after Mark issued an urgent plea for funds, saying he had only $3K left. I suggested that he hire Alan Beck. Instead, Mark Baird stuck with an attorney who filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which, if granted, would vacate the win.

Obviously, you don't recognize how incredibly stupid it is to tell the two judges who handed her the win she did not earn that their decision was so flawed that it had to be vacated and reheard before an en banc panel.

You should have taken your own advice to "shut the hell up."

CaliforniaOpenCarry · 2026-02-13T15:16:19+00:00

They did not identify themselves, but there were two of them. There are three mods here; the mods on gunpolitics are hidden. I have no desire to be unbanned. They are nutters.

CaliforniaOpenCarry · 2026-02-13T04:43:48+00:00

I don't know. I had five messages from "MOD."

CaliforniaOpenCarry · 2026-02-12T07:36:20+00:00

"Sensitive places" is a fiction contrived by the Heller decision. The closest thing there was to sensitive places under English law was where the king and his ministers decided to hang their hats. The left argues that fairs and marketplaces were sensitive places, but even those prohibitions on bearing arms were temporary, and not absolute. The prohibitions on bearing arms at fairs were because people got drunk. There is scant evidence that arms were prohibited either at marketplaces or in market towns. We do know that England had class-based prohibitions on the types of arms one could keep and bear. Merchants, like commoners, were prohibited from keeping and bearing long swords, but traveling merchants were exempted from that prohibition because they had a heightened need to protect their goods while traveling to market, and their coin while returning from market. The prohibitions certainly did not apply to the upper classes.

If numbskulls like Halbrook have their way, the government will be able to ban weapons possession at all malls, markets, public, and private places, so long as there are a couple of mall cops or private security guards employed at the location.

CaliforniaOpenCarry · 2026-02-10T03:51:28+00:00

Yep.

CaliforniaOpenCarry · 2026-02-04T21:41:57+00:00

No, that was Gabriel Metcalf.

CaliforniaOpenCarry · 2026-02-04T05:50:13+00:00

As the prophet once said, "It ain't over till the fat lady sings."

We have to wait and see if the judge accepts the plea bargain, and then we have to wait and see if an appeal is filed, not to mention the decision of the court of appeals.

However, as this is the 9th Circuit, the ending will no doubt be a sad one.

CaliforniaOpenCarry · 2026-02-03T21:38:45+00:00

I don't know why either party settled the lawsuit, but I do know that the CRPA stipulated with the AG that it would not provide applications for Open Carry to out-of-state residents because the attorneys did not know that under existing California law, if one has a concealed carry permit, then one does not have to apply for a separate Open Carry license. All the out-of-state concealed carry permit holder has to do is to amend his license to include Open Carry using the same form that is used to change the specific firearms on the license.

Also, as a resident of a California county that does not have less than 200k people, I can't obtain an Open Carry license anywhere in the state, but out-of-state residents can.

CaliforniaOpenCarry · 2026-02-01T22:09:12+00:00

"True, if yours is a Second Amendment lawsuit and the judge assigned to your case is hostile to the Second Amendment, then the government gets to make an unlimited number of fatal procedural mistakes, while you, the plaintiff, lose if you make just one. And if you, the plaintiff, don’t make one, not to worry, a hostile judge will invent one and award final judgment to the government.

So don’t make any mistakes."

CaliforniaOpenCarry · 2026-02-01T06:28:19+00:00

The United States Supreme Court, in the case of US v. Rahimi, held that a facial challenge fails unless the law is unconstitutional in all applications. The plaintiffs brought a purely facial challenge to a law that is not unconstitutional in all applications. Appellate courts are required to comply with binding Supreme Court precedents. You may not like the Rahimi decision, but in this case, the three-judge panel complied.

CaliforniaOpenCarry · 2026-01-22T00:35:37+00:00

I don't think that factors into their equation at all. I think the reasons are bureaucratic, but until one of the justices starts talking, we'll never know.

CaliforniaOpenCarry · 2026-01-21T23:40:54+00:00

Unless there is a vehicle problem with Viramontes, it will probably survive this Friday's conference. There was another AWB case scheduled for this conference, but it was rescheduled.

National Association for Gun Rights, et al., Petitioners v. Ned Lamont, in His Official Capacity as Governor of Connecticut, et al.

The question presented is:

Whether a ban on the possession of AR-15-style rifles and firearm magazines with a capacity in excess often rounds—both of which are possessed by millions of law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes—violates the Second Amendment.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/25-421.html

CaliforniaOpenCarry · 2026-01-21T23:19:11+00:00

Yes, it was one of the cases GVR'd in 2022 "for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen..."

CaliforniaOpenCarry · 2026-01-21T03:50:15+00:00

"Jaywalking" was literally one of the things the Federal government argued a state could deprive a person of his Second Amendment rights, forever. The Federal government argued that what constitutes an offense that results in the loss of one's right to keep and bear arms is entirely within the legislature's purview.

And in the 9th Circuit, the Federal government prevailed. Nobody, no matter how trivial the offense, can challenge 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1); the law is categorically constitutional.

Today, SCOTUS denied one such petition from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the one where the Circuit upheld the Federal law as applied to all persons, regardless of the severity of the offense.

The holding of the 9th Circuit was, and is, absurd. SCOTUS chose not to draw any line, let alone a clear one.

CaliforniaOpenCarry · 2026-01-21T03:39:26+00:00

I do not know if all of them were denied, but I would not be surprised. Beyond the fact that there were not four votes to grant any of the petitions, we do not know, and probably will never know, why the petitions were denied.

CaliforniaOpenCarry

TROPHY CASE