Difference between revisions of "Sykes v. McGinness"

From Calguns Foundation Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Intent)
(Intent)
Line 16: Line 16:
 
2. "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.)
 
2. "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.
+
A third but not explicit item is that ''may'' really means ''shall''.
  
 
-Gene Hoffman
 
-Gene Hoffman

Revision as of 20:59, 9 May 2009

Sykes v McGinness

Sykes v. McGinness following Nordyke, is a case challenging the Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) 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.

Status

Complaint filed May 5, 2009, awaiting response from the Defendants.

Calguns Discussion Thread

CCW: SAF, Calguns Challenge Arbitrary Denial of Right to Bear Arms In California

Intent

This suit seeks to do two things.

1. "Good Cause" shall be interpreted such that "self defense" is more than enough "Good Cause."

2. "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