Sykes v. McGinness
Sykes v McGinness
Sykes v. McGinness following Nordyke, 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.
The case is case number 2:09-cv-1235-MCE-KJM. Docket from RECAP.
- April 4, 2010: In his written order, Judge England has continued the Plaintiff's MSJ until 60 days after McDonald.
- September 1, 2009: In his written order, Judge England has continued the Plaintiff's MSJ until resolution of 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 opposition to Sacramento's motion to continue or stay plaintiff's MSJ.
- August 21, 2009: Sacramento filed a Motion to Continue or Suspend Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. The 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: Pretrial Scheduling Order entered.
- August 6, 2009: Plaintiffs filed a 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 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 Sheriff and Sacramento County, both from the same law firm and both demanding trial by jury.
- May 5, 2009: Complaint filed.
Calguns Discussion Thread
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.