Sykes v McGinness

[Quiet]

For those that do not know.

Sykes v McGinness is a current legal case challenging the "may issue" CCW system of CA.

It was filed last year and was put on hold until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made a final decision on Nordyke v King.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals put a hold on deciding Nordyke v King, until SCOTUS decided on McDonald v Chicago.

Today, SCOTUS released their decision on McDonald v Chicago.
They voted 5-4 that the Second Amendment is incorporated.

What this means for CA...

With SCOTUS deciding that the Second Amendment is incorporated, it will affect the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision on Nordyke v King, which in turn will affect Sykes v McGinness.

Last year a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 3-0 that the Second Amendment was incorporated. That decision was later put on hold, so that all en banc panel decision could be made (11 judge vote). After the en banc panel formed, they put all discussion on hold until after SCOTUS decided on McDonald v Chicago.

Now that SCOTUS has decided that Second Amendment is incorpoated, the en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will have to follow suit and decide/abide that the Second Amendment is incorporated.

All this will affect the outcome of Sykes v McGinness.

Sykes v McGinness seeks to change two things with CA's "may issue" CCW system.
1. That "self defense" is an adequate "good cause" for CCW issuance.
2. That "good moral character" equates to can legally own/possess a firearm

These two changes will basically make CA's "may issue" CCW system into a "shall issue" CCW system.

The next several months will be quite interesting for CA.

[ricbak]

Yes, I'll have to put more effort in my watching these cases, I have family in the Desert and would not mind staying there from time to time. I hate leaving my XDm or Beretta at home when I do go out there....

[2ARight]

I believe we are past the 60 day period, Have there been any further development on the Sykes V McGinness Case?

For those that do not know.

Sykes v McGinness is a current legal case challenging the "may issue" CCW system of CA.

It was filed last year and was put on hold until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made a final decision on Nordyke v King.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals put a hold on deciding Nordyke v King, until SCOTUS decided on McDonald v Chicago.

Today, SCOTUS released their decision on McDonald v Chicago.
They voted 5-4 that the Second Amendment is incorporated.

What this means for CA...

With SCOTUS deciding that the Second Amendment is incorporated, it will affect the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision on Nordyke v King, which in turn will affect Sykes v McGinness.

Last year a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 3-0 that the Second Amendment was incorporated. That decision was later put on hold, so that all en banc panel decision could be made (11 judge vote). After the en banc panel formed, they put all discussion on hold until after SCOTUS decided on McDonald v Chicago.

Now that SCOTUS has decided that Second Amendment is incorpoated, the en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will have to follow suit and decide/abide that the Second Amendment is incorporated.

All this will affect the outcome of Sykes v McGinness.

Sykes v McGinness seeks to change two things with CA's "may issue" CCW system.
1. That "self defense" is an adequate "good cause" for CCW issuance.
2. That "good moral character" equates to can legally own/possess a firearm

These two changes will basically make CA's "may issue" CCW system into a "shall issue" CCW system.

The next several months will be quite interesting for CA.

[sighere]

I just checked the court website to see if any new documents have been filed. Nothing yet. I did hear on Cal CCW that sacramento county has issued some CCW's wherein the GC statement was simply self defense. This is 3rd or 4th hand, so I am not sure how accurate it is. If this is the case, perhaps Sacto knows something that we don't yet know. Personally, I don't see how Sykes could be decided in any other way than that what we all feel is right. (good cause = self defense and moral character = not otherwise prohibited)

[Crom]

I believe we are past the 60 day period, Have there been any further development on the Sykes V McGinness Case?

Any day now I expect a motion for summary judgment to be filed by plaintiffs' counsel. They are waiting for something but I don't know what that is.

I just checked the court website to see if any new documents have been filed. Nothing yet. I did hear on Cal CCW that sacramento county has issued some CCW's wherein the GC statement was simply self defense. This is 3rd or 4th hand, so I am not sure how accurate it is. If this is the case, perhaps Sacto knows something that we don't yet know. Personally, I don't see how Sykes could be decided in any other way than that what we all feel is right. (good cause = self defense and moral character = not otherwise prohibited)

I have heard reports that they are issuing for self defense in Sac too.

[Quiet]

On 10-22-2010, the lawsuit has been amended.

It is now Richards v. Prieto (case #2:09-cv-1235-MCE-KJM).

The case was amended due to Sacramento County Sheriff being removed from the lawsuit.

The reason why the Sacramento County Sheriff Department was removed from the lawsuit is because the Sacramenton County Sheriff changed their CCW issuance policy, so that "personal protection" (" I wish to carry a firearm for self defense.") is now considered an acceptable "good cause" for CCW issuance. This change has made them "near shall issue" for CCW issuance.

If you live in Sacramento County, go apply for a CCW permit.

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department
711 G Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Tuesday 9:00 AM – 11:00 AM ONLY

[Quiet]

Peruta v. County of San Diego (case# 3:09-cv-02371-IEG-BGS) is another CCW lawsuit that is currently pending.

The lawsuit is seeking to make "self defense" to be adequate "good cause" for CCW issuance.

Court is expected to decide on the case sometime in Jun 2011.

[Lowjiber]

I don't want to appear negative, but I recently lived in California (Santa Clara County) for three years and still own a home there. Sadly, if anyone thinks that California will be a "shall issue" state in their lifetime...they are mistaken.

Santa Clara County is the heart of Silicone Valley in the south S.F. Bay Area. LEO's, private citizens, and the courts are dead-set against CCW's.

Santa Clara County is the place that last spring passed a County Ordinance stating that McDonalds could no longer put toys in their Kid's Meals because the children were getting too fat and it was McDonald's fault.

See this link: http://www.takepart.com/news/2010/04...-in-kids-meals