"OR" does not mean "AND" which is why Gura's case now hangs on Gura's boilerplated sixth prayer for relief in his
Complaint. For the reasons explained in the District's
Opposition to the Permanent Injunction the case in the district court is now over. It is now up to the judge to decide whether or not he wants to go beyond the scope of the relief requested in the
Complaint or simply close the case.
It is already been pointed out by me that Gura made a similar fatal mistake in
Schrader v. Holder in which the Court of Appeals admonished Gura for not challenging the law as being unconstitutional as-applied to his client. Had he done so then he very well may have won.
Despite the district court's conclusion in my
California Open Carry lawsuit, it is always permissible to bring a constitutional challenge to a law as-applied to one's client(s) while at the same time challenging the law as-applied to groups and as applied to everyone (a facial challenge).
Face it, Gura The Boy Blunder blew it. He should have spent more time working on his Complaint and less time admiring his own reflection.
Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org