Difference between revisions of "Sykes v. McGinness"

From Calguns Foundation Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Status)
(Redirect added to the newly styled case name.)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
=Richards v. Prieto (formerly 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.
+
 
+
Deanna Sykes, Andrew Witham, Adam Richards,
+
Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.,
+
and The Calguns Foundation, Inc.,
+
+
    Plaintiffs,
+
+
    v.
+
 
+
John McGinness, County of Sacramento,
+
Ed Prieto, and County of Yolo,
+
+
    Defendants.
+
 
+
''[[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.  This case was filed in [http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/ U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California].
+
 
+
*October 27, 2010: [http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.191626/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.43.0.pdf STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for filing Second Amended Complaint]
+
 
+
*October 22, 2010 The action against Sheriff McGinness has been [http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.191626/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.41.0.pdf dismissed].  The case against Yolo County and Sheriff Prieto continues under a new name ''Richards v. Prieto''
+
 
+
*October 22, 2010 Plaintiffs have filed a [http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.191626/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.42.0.pdf motion to amend] and a hearing on that motion will take place December 16, 2010
+
 
+
*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=356199 CGF:Sykes becomes Richards v. Prieto/Yolo]
+
 
+
[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: