Difference between revisions of "Sykes v. McGinness"

From Calguns Foundation Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Intent)
(Redirect added to the newly styled case name.)
 
(10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
=Sykes v McGinness=
+
#REDIRECT [[Richards v. Prieto]]
[http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/Sykes-v-McGinness-Complaint-2009-05-09.pdf Sykes v. McGinness] is a case challenging the carry license issuing policies in Yolo and Sacramento Counties.
+
 
+
Sykes is the first named plaintiff (Deanna Sykes, Andrew Witham, Adam Richards, Second Amendment Foundation, and The Calguns Foundation) and McGinness is the first named defendant, John McGinness, Sheriff of Sacramento County.
+
 
+
''[[Palmer v. District of Columbia]]'' is a sister case challenging the District of Columbia's ban of the carrying of firearms for self defense.
+
 
+
==Status==
+
 
+
The case is case number 2:09-cv-1235-MCE-KJM. [http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.191626/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.docket.html Docket] from RECAP.
+
 
+
*June 28, 2010: [http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/McDonald_v._Chicago ''McDonald''] decision released.  60-day countdown as directed by Judge England starts before a refiling of MSJ's on either side.
+
 
+
*April 13, 2010: In his [http://ia311040.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.caed.191626/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.40.0.pdf written order], Judge England has continued the Plaintiff's MSJ until 60 days after [http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/McDonald_v._Chicago ''McDonald''].
+
 
+
*September 1, 2009: In his [http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/038-Order-Continuance.pdf written order], Judge England has continued the Plaintiff's MSJ until resolution of [http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Nordyke_v._King ''Nordyke''].
+
 
+
*August 27, 2009: at a hearing this date, Judge England granted a 60-day delay before hearing the MSJ, to approximately the end of November, 2009.  New exact date TBD.
+
 
+
*August 26, 2009: The plaintiffs filed an [http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.32.0.pdf opposition] to Sacramento's motion to continue or stay plaintiff's MSJ.
+
 
+
*August 21, 2009: Sacramento [http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.191626/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.28.0.pdf filed a Motion to Continue or Suspend Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment]. The [http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.191626/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.28.1.pdf Points and Authorities] claim that discovery is needed to ascertain standing. As standing is generally a matter of law in this case, this is a somewhat unusual request.
+
 
+
*August 18, 2009: [http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.191626/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.26.0.pdf Pretrial Scheduling Order] entered.
+
 
+
*August 6, 2009: Plaintiffs filed a [http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/MSJ-2009-08-06/019-Sykes-v-McGinness-MSJ-P+A-2009-08-6.pdf Motion For Summary Judgment]. Hearing date for the motion will be Thursday, September 24, 2009, at 2:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Courtroom 7 of the United State District Court for the Eastern California, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814.
+
 
+
*July, 15 2009: Yolo County entered [http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/Yolo-Answer-2009-07-15.pdf an answer].
+
 
+
*July, 2009: Yolo County requested and received an extension of time for response until July 15, 2009.
+
 
+
*June 3, 2009: Replies from the [http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/McGinnis-Answer-2009-06-03.pdf Sheriff] and [http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/Sacramento-County-Answer-2009-06-03.pdf Sacramento County], both from the same law firm and both demanding trial by jury.
+
 
+
*May 5, 2009: [http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/Sykes-v-McGinness-Complaint-2009-05-09.pdf Complaint] filed.
+
 
+
==Calguns Discussion Thread==
+
[http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=180923 CCW: SAF, Calguns Challenge Arbitrary Denial of Right to Bear Arms In California]
+
== Intent ==
+
This suit seeks to do two things.
+
 
+
# "Good Cause" shall be interpreted such that "self defense" is more than enough "Good Cause."
+
# "Good moral character" shall be interpreted to mean "not otherwise prohibited from buying or possessing firearms" under the common understanding of that term (felon in possession, no 5150 bar, etc.)
+
#A third but not explicit item is that ''may'' really means ''shall''.
+
 
+
::-Gene Hoffman
+

Latest revision as of 04:26, 3 November 2010

Redirect to: