OK, this one requires some explaining.

Plaintiff Nichols is a retarded idiot who is suing California so that he can enjoy his right to carry his firearm, openly and in public, arguing it is his right. Whatever, that's a valid suit, who gives a fuck. We move on.

In his opening brief, to introduce himself to the court, he proudly and unabashedly announced he owns a pre-1986 machine gun. Not relevant to the conversation, but fuck it, man has to show off his dick so the other monkeys will respect him.

That however, is not why I brought you all here today. In the link: http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/83-Second-Amended-Complaint-031116531126.pdf, page 23, (PDF warning, blahblah), he describes his habitual carrying of a firearm.

Plaintiff has frequently and countless times violated California Penal Code Section 25850, the Redondo Beach City Ordinances and other California statutes prohibiting firearms from being carried in non-sensitive public places. Plaintiff continues to violate California Penal Code Section 25850.. on the 7th day of every month by carrying a firearm (a holstered handgun, rifle or shotgun of a type in common use by the public) in a public place. Plaintiff will violate California Penal Code Sections 25850, 26350, 26400, and the Redondo Beach City Ordinances and other California statutues prohibiting firearms from being carried in public places on August 7, 2013 in the same location in the Ctiy of Redondo Beach where he was prevented from openly carrying a firearm under threat of arrest on August 7, 2010 ... Plaintiff will then proceed from the Redondo Beach Pier and environs to the South Bay Shopping Center in the City of Redondo Beach to do some shopping. Plaintiff will then ... visit relative in Torrance ...where he will openly carry firearms along the public streets and on the public sidewalks... Plaintiff will openly carry a loaded holstered handgun, loaded rifle and loaded shotgun of a type in common use by the public.

Now, I know what you're thinking, "this is dense, what am I missing."

Plaintiff will openly carry a loaded holstered handgun, loaded rifle and loaded shotgun of a type in common use by the public.

Nothing says, "I would like to indulge in a light shootout," more than announcing your habitual custom is to carry no less than three guns. Amazingly the machinegun is not brought on these outings.

I can only imagine Nichols looks like this on his monthly walks: https://youtu.be/Op5jke-f-Bw?t=65

But wait. Surely we can have more fun?

In this filing: http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/14-55873-Opening-Brief-and-Addendum-PACER.1-111.pdf, pages 4-10, the introduction, plaintiff proudly recites the racist history on the prohibition of carrying a loaded firearm in public. Blacks, guns, bad, racist legislature, etc. So are we expecting a (poorly concocted) argument on the racial animus present at the time of the statute? No, just burning the court's time, as Mr. Nichols gracefully announces he will not be arguing race at all. However we get some cute photos, p 18 and 20.

I dunno, I'm reading up on his case because...well firearms is sorta my job and Nichols is so fascinating as an example of why pro se representation is RETARDED.

Anywho, enjoy your light reading boyos.