cocked&locked
Member
He will never give you a straight answer. However, I have filed one with the court which cites two legal authorities. You can read it here -> http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/92-ROM1.pdf
What judge Otero held was that I could not make a race based equal protection challenge because I had not plead (stated in my Complaint) that the law had been enforced against me because of my race. In support of which he cited a 9th circuit decision filed after he had denied the state's motion to dismiss my First Amended Complain (FAC) (My FAC contained the same race based equal protection claim). The decision Judge Otero cited (Furnace) was a case involving a religious equal protection claim by a prisoner who was upset because he had not been served vegetarian meals.
All of the relevant briefs and FRAP 28(j) letters are linked at my website for anyone to read -> http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=6922
The inmate had never claimed that he was denied vegetarian meals because of his religion or because the guards had a policy or custom of denying vegetarian meals based upon one's religion.
From my initial complaint filed in November of 2011, I had argued that the law was racially motivated and that I suffer an ongoing injury from its enforcement.
Judge Otero had no problem with the way I framed my race based equal protection claim until he issued final judgment on May 1, 2014. On July 3, 2013, Judge Otero couldn't find anything wrong with my race based equal protection claim when he denied my motion for a preliminary injunction on July 3, 2013. Instead, Judge Otero said he was denying my motion because I had not provided evidence showing that the law was disproportionately enforced. Presumably, he was relying on a US Supreme Court decision from 1985 which required that one show disproportionate enforcement by a preponderance of the evidence. I don't know because Judge Otero did not cite a case in support of his conclusion that I was required to make a showing that the law is disproportionately enforced against minorities. I did prove disproportionate enforcement in my motion for partial summary judgment and I provided the proof in my Second Amended Complaint which courts are required to accept as true.
But that doesn't matter because a decade later (1996) the US Supreme Court held that animus (and it doesn't have to be racial animus) is sufficient reason to strike down a law even under rational basis review.
Moreover, Judge Otero's holding that one must plead that a criminal statute has been enforced against him because of his race would preclude pre-enforcement challenges by racial minorities.
Whichever way my appeal goes, I don't thing the three judge panel is going to remain silent on that very bizarre holding of Judge Otero.
Another thing lubed&cocked doesn't seem to understand, which is pretty conclusive proof that he is not a lawyer despite its claim to the contrary, is the rationale Judge Otero applied is not at issue in my appeal. The state conceded in its Answering Brief that "[T]he district court here relied on case law subsequently superseded to apply rational-basis review and to uphold California’s open-carry laws..."
The state's attorney did not defend the rationale of the district court in his Answering Brief, he flat out stated that Judge Otero got the case law wrong and Judge Otero was wrong to apply rational-basis review.
For that matter, the entirety of my appeal is what the courts call a de novo review which, in the context of my appeal where the facts are not in dispute, means that it doesn't matter what rationale the district court gave for upholding California's Open Carry bans.
No deference is given to the district court decision under de novo review. Either the court of appeals holds that there is no Second Amendment right even one inch outside the doors to our homes or the court of appeals holds that the Second Amendment does extend beyond the doors to our home but nevertheless, the bans are constitutional.
Doesn't it seem odd that the self-professed lawyer/astronauts here can't cite any case law in support of their rantings and ravings and yet I, someone who is not an attorney, have no difficulty in providing pinpoint citations in support of my arguments?
Finally Charlie admits that what I have been saying all along is true. Namely, that the problem with his 'case' is that he did not write a proper complaint. It has nothing to do with substantive 2A issues. So, why is he spending any time discussing 2A substantive issues (which he is wrong on)?
Now, concerning his legal analytical skills and abilities to interpret cases and caselaw you can read the Decision and Posts #'s 91, 100, 123, and 133. Then tell me your confidence level concerning the above analysis.