Charles Nichols, Open Carry, and Redondo Beach



Early in the month of May, Charlie Nichols had his gun in full array. . ..



Charles Nichols of Redondo Beach tested the city’s ordinance on open-carry firearms earlier this year. Strolling through Veterans Park, armed with a shotgun, Nichols paraded his civil disobedience. Park visitors nearby did more than shoot him a glance. They probably stared with concern, fearing that an armed male walking through the park with a shotgun was gunning for trouble. He was later arrested and charged with a misdemeanor: carrying a firearm into a city park. Pleading no contest, Nichols explained that he was contesting the state law and the city ordinance which banned him from carrying his gun in plain air for all to see.



Nichols has argued then and now that the United States Supreme Court ruled in Washington D.C. v. Heller that the Second Amendment explicitly defends the right of individual American citizens to bear arms. Therefore, the state of California and its municipalities have no right to prevent him from carrying his gun in public.



Despite the parochial, even sophomoric nature of this story, Nichols’ open affront to California’s open-carry ban carries more weight and should lead conservatives and Republican Party activists not only to inform residents of the Democratic assault on individual liberties, but also the proper means for making their case to the public.



Following his arrest and conviction, Nichols filed a federal lawsuit against Governor Jerry Brown, Attorney General Kamala Harris, and the city of Redondo Beach. Last week, the Beach Reporter reported that Nichols has dropped the lawsuit against the city for now, dismissing the case without prejudice. In other words, Nichols has reserved the right to refile the case if he chooses to.



The Nichols incident hones in on the larger debate about gun control, mass violence, and the Second Amendment, all of which reached a nationwide pitch in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut school massacre. Taft Union High School in the Central Valley also endured a mass murder earlier this year, and June 7 was another violent day, that time in Santa Monica, where a deranged, isolated youth assembled an assault weapon and rampaged through Santa Monica streets all the way to the City College, killing five people and wounding several others. The outcry from the community led to a public forum, hosted by Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles/ South Bay) and state senator Ted Lieu (D-Santa Monica, South Bay).



Despite President Obama’s and Congressman Henry Waxman’s push to enact tougher gun restrictions, federal reforms failed to pass the US Senate. Today, every state has concealed-carry laws on their books (including Illinois). California still maintains its open carry ban, one of many new laws from the regulate-frustrate Sacramento state legislature, which signals the growing assault on individual liberties from progressive California politicians.



Brian Charles of The Los Angeles Media New Group wrote the piece on Nichols’ decision to drop his civil suit against the city of Redondo Beach. The columnist added that Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion in Heller reminded litigants that their ruling would not permit gun owners to carry their guns anywhere at any time. A point well-taken which Nichols ignored.



Besides, Nichols’ fight against the city of Redondo Beach would have been an egregious waste of time and money for the taxpayers of the Beach City. His choice to pursue legal action against the state leaders is more appropriate. Still, his method for testing the state’s overreach against the Second Amendment should draw more concern than praise.



What good does it serve Second Amendment advocates to scare law-abiding citizens in a public park? A firearm is not a toy, and should be more than a mere political prop. Did Nichols have to flagrantly bear arms and get arrested in order to challenge the state law? Some activists would contend that Nichols’ shocking action was necessary to get some traction on the issue. Granted, the progressive-statist mantra of Sacramento Democrats should alarm more California voters. Already a Republican has picked up a state senate seat in a two-to-one Democratic district in the Central Valley. Cherry farmer Andy Vidak’s victory signaled not just discontent with Democratic policies, but a retrenchment against Sacramento micromanaging of state water supplies and the demanding eminent domain agenda of California’s high speed bullet train project.



Still, South Bay conservatives should seek more effective, respectable, and ultimately palatable means for sparking political discussion and informing residents about the dangers of Big Government made Bigger by Democrats and their special interests lobbies. While Nichols pursues his lawsuit against the governor and the attorney general, South Bay conservatives must prep to inform voters of the damaging legislation inflicted on the state from the tax-and-spend supermajority in Sacramento. With the exodus of businesses and residents, with the stagnation of wages and hires, plus the rising accounts of misuse of Prop 30 monies, South Bay voters, from Palos Verdes to Gardena, should shape their outrage and carry their dissent to their neighbors, to local elections, and toward their statewide representatives, not carrying firearms in public.