Goodbye Sykes v. McGinness

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Sykes v. McGinness was challenging discretionary issue in California's Sacramento & Yolo counties (Sheriff's discretion)


    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=356199
    Second Amendment Rights Are Reaffirmed After Sacramento County Sheriff's Office Changes Carry License Policies Say Gun Rights Organizations
    Case Continues Against Yolo County to Secure Right to Self-Defense


    Bellevue, WA and San Carlos, CA (October 25, 2010) - The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Calguns Foundation have dismissed their case against Sacramento County, California and its Sheriff, John McGinness, after the Sheriff modified his handgun carry permitting policy. Law-abiding Sacramento County residents may now successfully apply for permits to carry handguns by asserting self-defense as a basis for carry permit issuance. A one-year residency requirement has been eliminated, as has policy language that tied self-defense to arbitrary geographic factors.

    Sheriff McGinness is now off the hook, but Yolo County is still holding out, so...Richards v. Prieto it is.

    Another brick is taken from the wall...
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Great news.

    This following San Diego's recent jump to settle for cash when they arrested a man for legal open carry. Let's see who else out there get the clue. Eventually others in CA will want the same. Sacramento is not the county of hillbillies that many once thought it was. It is dangerously close to San Fransisco in terms of demographics now (nowhere near the size, obviously, and still plenty of hayseeds). A lot of people moved out there from East Bay to do telecommuting.

    CA is a few years ahead of MD when it comes to these cases. Sacramento County was facing an election where this end was going to happen anyway, but it's good to see it come sooner, even if by a few days. The settlement was likely in the works for a while.

    Municipalities backing down is nice, but a solid win would be nicer. You can pretty sure someone will fight this to the end - either NY or IL are my guess. I don't think MD will be last holdout. They'll fold if the others do.


    EDIT: As krucam notes, Yolo County has not settled and may be holding out. That could be hard for them because they really are pretty small in comparison to Sacramento. A loss for Yolo would apply throughout a good portion of CA. LA would be affected, as would be San Fransisco. It would reverberate nationwide.

    Here's hoping Yolo holds out all the way. With or without help from LA and SF, they should continue fighting so they can rightly lose this case. I am afraid they will also settle and rob us of a good first (and big) win for CCW in the the courts.
     

    Oreo

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Mar 23, 2008
    1,394
    This press release from SAF:
    SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS REAFFIRMED AFTER SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE CHANGES CARRY LICENSE POLICIES SAY GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS

    CASE CONTINUES AGAINST YOLO COUNTY TO SECURE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE


    BELLEVUE, WA & SAN CARLOS, CA - The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Calguns Foundation have dismissed their case against Sacramento County, California and its Sheriff, John McGinness, after the Sheriff modified his handgun carry permitting policy. Law-abiding Sacramento County residents may now successfully apply for permits to carry handguns by asserting self-defense as a basis for carry permit issuance. A one-year residency requirement has been eliminated, as has policy language that tied self-defense to arbitrary geographic factors.

    While Sacramento County has changed its policies, other counties still fail to recognize that self-defense is a legally sufficient reason for issuance of a handgun carry permit. The litigation will continue against Yolo County and its Sheriff, Ed Prieto, on behalf of SAF, Calguns, and Davis resident Adam Richards. Additionally, this past March, Calguns supporter Brett Stewart unsuccessfully asserted self-defense as a basis for seeking a carrying license from Sheriff Prieto. The Sheriff's written policy states that "self protection and protection of family (without credible threats of violence)" are insufficient reasons to exercise Second Amendment rights. Mr. Stewart will seek to join the litigation as a plaintiff in this case, now styled Richards v. Prieto.

    "We are very happy to have been able to work with Sheriff McGinness to assist Sacramento County in revising their policies and practices," said Gene Hoffman, Chairman of the Calguns Foundation. "Over the past year, more than 30 of our law abiding members and supporters have received licenses to carry firearms with good cause' statements that are simple variations of self-defense. Even though the Sheriff is retiring at the end of the year, both candidates to replace Sheriff McGinness have publicly stated their support for Second Amendment rights and that they consider self-defense a compelling reason for issuance of gun carry permit."

    "The Second Amendment Foundation will continue working with the Calguns Foundation and keep funding attorney Alan Gura's lawsuits in California until everyone's firearms civil rights are fully protected," added SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. "Together, we will see many more legal victories."

    For those who wish to apply for a CCW permit, the Calguns Foundation maintains an informational portal to assist applicants in all 58 California counties as part of its recently announced Carry Licensing Compliance and Sunshine Initiative. The Sacramento County page has details on the actual procedure and successful good cause statements and is available at http://bit.ly/CGFSacCarry .
     

    MDFF2008

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 12, 2008
    24,735
    I'm not sure we should be celebrating this.

    They got what they wanted, but there was no legal precedent created really.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    I'm not sure we should be celebrating this.

    They got what they wanted, but there was no legal precedent created really.

    It is a victory for those in Sacramento County without a doubt. Those of us in MD and those in CA outside of Sacramento Cty....yeah, I agree. It is a mixed blessing.

    We need some legit Judicial precedent...
     

    Oreo

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Mar 23, 2008
    1,394
    I think those kinds of suggestions have come up a few times here Ezliving, and the thought is that at this particular time the law getting changed voluntarily would be too little too late. The idea is that legislators are fickle and legislate any way the wind blows. What is legislated in our favor today may go against us in the future. Where as a solid legal win will have more staying power. 5yrs ago your thinking would be right, but today we're so close to winning the fight on our terms it makes better sense to stay the course and get the judicial win even if it takes a little longer. Then the legislators can't touch it (short of a national constitutional convention to abolish the 2nd amendment.)
     

    jonnyl

    Ultimate Member
    Sep 23, 2009
    5,969
    Frederick
    I understand the importance of judicial precedent, but would the LTCF law changed in Maryland to shall-issue be worth dismissing Woollard v. Sheridan?

    I say, "you betcha."

    It'd be good in the short term, but I'd worry that after the SCOTUS gets stacked by the libs the laws would swing backwards. Then they'd go to the top and get the wrong precedent...

    Usually I'm an optimist, but I'm learning....
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    A filing yesterday in Sykes/McGinness, now Richards/Prieto.

    01/06/2011 51 ORDER by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii: Due to the elevation of Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller to the position of District Judge, this action is temporarily assigned to *Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd*. (Manzer, C) (Entered: 01/06/2011)

    What is the "this action" he's referring to? Docket is here if anyone has an idea: http://ia700408.us.archive.org/4/items/gov.uscourts.caed.191626/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.docket.html

    Tomorrow, expect a filing stating affidavit of "no filing", because it is Saturday.
    That is all...
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Some differences in approach between the two coasts. Mostly I'd say its a matter of tone. In CA, Gura almost falls over himself making it clear the state has a ton of regualtory options left even if they toss the 'good and substantial' bit and go shall-issue.

    On the East Coast, the briefs are quite direct and less conciliatory.

    I think it's an analysis on their part of the various circuits involved, as well as an exercise of different tactics on different fronts. You do what works best in each geography and then maybe apply lessons (good and bad) to your other cases.

    The SAF has a lot on their side in their approach. They get to position arguments early in some cases, pick up the defensive strategy used by the government and then counter it. Then when they make a similar move in the other place, they are preemptively postured for the defense. The other side is also coordinating, but their hands are bit more tied than ours.

    Thurgood Marshall began doing the same before he was put on the bench. This is his approach, writ-large. It will work.
     

    Al Norris

    Spud Head
    Dec 1, 2010
    746
    Rupert, Idaho
    Just a random thought here....

    Alan Gura, through the auspices of the SAF, is stirring up quite a hornets nest, litigation wise. Would it make sense to offer him a judgeship?
     

    jpk1md

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 13, 2007
    11,313
    Just a random thought here....

    Alan Gura, through the auspices of the SAF, is stirring up quite a hornets nest, litigation wise. Would it make sense to offer him a judgeship?

    Only if its on SCOTUS

    I'm confident that he knows what "Shall Not Be Infringed" means.
     

    Oreo

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Mar 23, 2008
    1,394
    Even on SCOTUS it would be a bad call for someone as valuable as Gura. He has more influence and power as an attorney because he can work full time on 2A issues. As a SCOTUS judge his voice is diluted among 8 other justices and will only serve the 2A once every few years when a related case comes up.
     

    Al Norris

    Spud Head
    Dec 1, 2010
    746
    Rupert, Idaho
    Oreo said:
    As a SCOTUS judge his voice is diluted among 8 other justices and will only serve the 2A once every few years when a related case comes up.

    That was kinda my point. As a federal judge (district, circuit or Justice), he would be effectively stifled. Not saying he would accept an appointment, but one never knows....
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,922
    Messages
    7,259,108
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom