View Full Version : First Palmer, then McDonald, then Beers?

Peaceful John
03-29-2010, 8:37 AM
If the Fed Dist Ct holds in our favor in Palmer and finds that D.C. must either (a) issue carry permits (CCW's?) for all or (b) strike the permit requirement entirely, how does that affect the California CCW situation? How would CA CCW's be affected if McDonald is decided in our favor?


03-29-2010, 8:39 AM
McDonald will trigger Sykes which will bring about the end of discriminatory issue. From there it will get into a lot of details over the next couple of years.

Dr Rockso
03-29-2010, 8:40 AM

03-29-2010, 12:41 PM
*snicker* I certainly think beers are in order after we hear the outcome of McDonald. :)

Back on topic though, after Sykes v. McGinness, that should bring about shall issue in California. It won't be binding precedent country-wide though, as I believe it's either in state court or district court (I can't remember). Either way, it has the desired effect in California. Palmer will only be binding on DC.

Super Spy
03-29-2010, 1:19 PM
I think a full-on Calguns Keg Party is in order after we hear the outcome of McDonald.........

03-29-2010, 1:30 PM
Sykes is in the United States District Court for the Eastern (Sacramento) District of California. Most all of the other states in the Ninth Circuit are already pretty much "shall issue" or better so any appeal to the Ninth would not necessarily affect them either way.

Hawaii is the only state within the Ninth, aside from California, that is not shall issue. They are "may issue" much as California is now and my understanding is that permit issuance is near nil. As such the Aloha State
could be affected through future litigation spurred by a decision in our favor with Sykes.

03-29-2010, 1:32 PM
As such the Aloha State
could be affected through future litigation spurred by a decision in our favor with Sykes.

Such litigation should be a slam-dunk after a win in Sykes though.

03-30-2010, 3:14 AM
McDonald will cut many ways. Certainly if it is decided in favor of incorporation, most CA gun laws will make lawyers rich. So about ten years after passage, things on guns will be good.

But many things are not defined in the Constitution. Marriage, abortion, corporate person hood, and other controversial but undefined things will then devolve down to the state level; where these things are defined in state Constitutions, they will be settled. But where they are not defined, then things get dicey. It's a real good time to be a lawyer, which I am not.