Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-23-2013, 1:16 AM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default McKay v. Hutchens (CCW)

McKay v. Hutchens [Orange County]
Issue: 2A right to bear arms in public.

Current Status:
As of 3/24/2014 - Stayed pending decision in 4 cases that have now all been decided (except for potential petitions en banc).

3/20/2014 - Baker decided (unpub).
3/13/2014 - Citation of Supp. Auth. filed by Appellants.
3/5/2014 - Richards decided (unpub).
2/13/2014 - Peruta published.
11/18/2013 - Chovan opinion published.
11/12/2013 - Stay pending Chovan, Peruta, Richards, and Baker.
10/7/2013 - Oral Arguments (Audio).
8/1/2013 - Oral Arguments scheduled for 10/7/2013 at 9:30am, ctrm 1, Pasadena.
3/4/2013 - Reply Brief.

Trial Court: C.D. Cal. (Southern Division)
Case No.: 8:12-cv-01458
Docket: http://ia601505.us.archive.org/25/it...39.docket.html

Appellate Court: 9CA
Case No.: 12-57049
Docket: http://ia601808.us.archive.org/25/it...49.docket.html

Links:
Michel & Assoc. Case Tracker: http://michellawyers.com/mckay-v-sheriff-hutchens/

Last edited by fizux; 03-24-2014 at 7:49 PM.. Reason: Update
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-13-2014, 10:53 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,115
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fizux View Post
McKay v. Hutchens [Orange County]
Issue: 2A right to bear arms in public.

Current Status:
As of 11/13/2013 - Stayed, pending Chovan, Peruta, Richards, and Baker.

11/18/2013 - Chovan opinion published.
11/12/2013 - Stay pending Chovan, Peruta, Richards, and Baker.
10/7/2013 - Oral Arguments (Audio).
8/1/2013 - Oral Arguments scheduled for 10/7/2013 at 9:30am, ctrm 1, Pasadena.
3/4/2013 - Reply Brief.
I see you forgot to update the "Current Status" after Chovan was published, to remove it from the list of cases that are keeping McKay stayed.

As of today, you can also remove Peruta from that list (or wait until a decision re. en banc appeal).

The question I have is do all of those cases really have to be finally decided before McKay can proceed, or is there some issue that is common to them that it will only take one of those cases to finally decided which will allow McKay to go forward? IOW, was the issue that stayed McKay decided in Peruta, or must we wait for Richards and Baker decisions from the 9th before McKay gets moving again?
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
180+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-14-2014, 1:36 AM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks. Will do.

The list was based upon the stay order (which may well have been updated/amended since I last checked).
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peņa v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA).
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-16-2014, 3:46 AM
press1280 press1280 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 1,711
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I see you forgot to update the "Current Status" after Chovan was published, to remove it from the list of cases that are keeping McKay stayed.

As of today, you can also remove Peruta from that list (or wait until a decision re. en banc appeal).

The question I have is do all of those cases really have to be finally decided before McKay can proceed, or is there some issue that is common to them that it will only take one of those cases to finally decided which will allow McKay to go forward? IOW, was the issue that stayed McKay decided in Peruta, or must we wait for Richards and Baker decisions from the 9th before McKay gets moving again?
Logically it should only wait for resolution (en banc or final order from the district court or SCOTUS) for Peruta since it's only challenging "good cause". Richards and Baker have a few other aspects not present in McKay.
But, if the order said stayed for all 3 cases, they may just do that and wait for resolution in all 3.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-20-2014, 11:05 AM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 356
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default OC Sheriff Announcement re CCW Policy Change

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/s...ty.html?page=1
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-20-2014, 11:16 AM
Liberty1's Avatar
Liberty1 Liberty1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,544
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
Does that moot the case?
__________________
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
-- Cesare Beccaria http://www.a-human-right.com/
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-20-2014, 11:53 AM
Calplinker Calplinker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,613
iTrader: 12 / 93%
Default Moot

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1813-2013 View Post
Does that moot the case?
Not in my mind. If you go to their website, the SO explains that their change in policy is due to Peruta, BUT if a stay is issued for either en ban or a SCOTUS cert, then they may require supplemental good cause be submitted that conforms to their current standard (which is tough to meet).
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-20-2014, 12:54 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,869
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1813-2013 View Post
Does that moot the case?
No. The case is against San Diego County Sheriffs, not Orange County, and San Diego already lost. San Diego has not announced such a change in policy. Rather, San Diego Sheriffs Department has said they will hold self-defense applications in "abeyance" while the "legal issues are resolved".

It wouldn't surprise me if they tried some funny business ala Chicago like rewriting their administrative policy just enough to claim the case is moot just in advance of the issuance of the mandate.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit

Last edited by Maestro Pistolero; 02-20-2014 at 12:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-20-2014, 4:02 PM
Rossi357's Avatar
Rossi357 Rossi357 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sandy Eggo County
Posts: 1,225
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Maybe they know that SD isn't going to ask for en banc.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-20-2014, 7:28 PM
Calplinker Calplinker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,613
iTrader: 12 / 93%
Default CA-9

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi357 View Post
Maybe they know that SD isn't going to ask for en banc.
No chance. SD will ask for en banc as there is no down side for them.

If en banc is granted, the ruling will be stayed, giving them time....

If en banc is denied, they are right back to where they are now. They gained time.... and lost nothing. If en banc is granted, all comes full stop for months. Again.....more time is gained.

Should they not be granted an en banc review? Ask for cert and a stay while SCOTUS ponders. Again, more time......

If I was an anti, this is what I would do.

From a judicial stand point, the anti's are momentarily in retreat. They are falling back and at the Federal level, their best hope is that one of the Heller 5 dies or has to retire.

That's the game changer they need. Short of that, they will fight a battle of attrition with sympathetic state courts and legislatures like we have here in CA.

Tick tock......

Last edited by Calplinker; 02-20-2014 at 7:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-20-2014, 9:22 PM
Funtimes's Avatar
Funtimes Funtimes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 947
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

People keep forgetting that two other cases are due out from this too. It's not all on Peruta and what they do.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor.
Sig Certified Handgun / Active Shooter Instructor.

2L Student. Nothing is legal advice, just simply my 2 cents worth of opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-20-2014, 9:24 PM
Funtimes's Avatar
Funtimes Funtimes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 947
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
I would think if I were the city we would just try to stipulate a dismissal and end that case out easily.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor.
Sig Certified Handgun / Active Shooter Instructor.

2L Student. Nothing is legal advice, just simply my 2 cents worth of opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-21-2014, 7:26 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,115
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
No. The case is against San Diego County Sheriffs, not Orange County, and San Diego already lost. San Diego has not announced such a change in policy. Rather, San Diego Sheriffs Department has said they will hold self-defense applications in "abeyance" while the "legal issues are resolved".
The question was whether the change in OC's policy moots the McKay case against Hutchens-OC (that's what this thread is about), not the Peruta case against Gore-SD.

My guess is that given Hutchens is willing to change to a virtual Shall Issue policy before Gore-SD has exhausted their appeals shows that once those options are no longer available, she'll capitulate quickly and the McKay case will be mooted. But we're not there yet....
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
180+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice

Last edited by Paladin; 02-21-2014 at 7:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-24-2014, 7:53 PM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

OP updated with links.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
The question was whether the change in OC's policy moots the McKay case against Hutchens-OC (that's what this thread is about), not the Peruta case against Gore-SD.

My guess is that given Hutchens is willing to change to a virtual Shall Issue policy before Gore-SD has exhausted their appeals shows that once those options are no longer available, she'll capitulate quickly and the McKay case will be mooted. But we're not there yet....
Two issues:
1. If Peruta gets withdrawn pending en banc, then what?
2. If this case goes away, can the Sheriff (or a newly elected Anti) change the policy and go back to vNI?
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peņa v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA).
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-25-2014, 6:06 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,115
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fizux View Post
Two issues:
1. If Peruta gets withdrawn pending en banc, then what?
If CA AG Harris is allowed to intervene (I'd give that just over 50:50 chance), and CA9 votes to take it en banc (I'd give that less than 50:50 chance), and Peruta gets withdrawn, what will Hutchens do? I'm pretty confident she'll keep issuing for SD as GC despite the law reverting, so to speak, back to pre-Peruta opinion status. Why? (1) When she came in, she HAD to prove she was not going to let anyone benefit from Carona's corruption, that her admin. was going to be different, and a lot of good, law-abiding CCWers in OC became roadkill (necessary losses in her mind), in proving that she's legit. Things got really messy -- it was pretty much a political fiasco.

She did NOT have to go vSI right after Peruta. She knew plenty well that it could be appealed. Yet she went for it. IMHO, she is not going to go back and go thru all that again without even having the political cover of doing it to weed out corruption. Plus, it would make her seem so short sighted that she's flip-flopping, being blow around by every change in the direction of the political winds -- not good for a "leader". Plus, I don't think the local media will give her much political cover if she switches back so soon.

(2) If she was going to yank SD=GC if Peruta went en banc, she would not have gone thru all she and the BoS did and are doing to get funding for all those retired LEOs to help process the new CCW apps. That was not a minor accomplishment. Neither the sheriff nor the BoS will look good if they suddenly say, "Our bad. We're putting this on hold for a year since CA9 just took Peruta en banc. We'll revise the budget once again."

Quote:
Originally Posted by fizux View Post
2. If this case goes away, can the Sheriff (or a newly elected Anti) change the policy and go back to vNI?
I assume you mean McKay by "this case" and not Peruta.

McKay won't move forward or "go away" until Peruta is final (i.e., Peruta does not go en banc, or it either it stands or falls en banc or at SCOTUS).

If Peruta does NOT go en banc (nor to SCOTUS), Peruta is good law, end of story. No going back to vNI. After, oh, I'd guess about 5 years, too many OC residents will have CCWs for an anti to get elected, even if they could go back to vNI.

If Peruta DOES go en banc (but not to SCOTUS), and we win, again, end of story, no going back to vNI, and, after 5 years or so of no major problems and lots of CCWers, no anti will be able to get elected on an anti platform.

Only thing that could hurt us in either of these cases is SCOTUS taking a different Carry case (e.g., Drake/Palmer), and we lose (thus gutting Peruta's holding). Then we're back to playing county politics. Best to help as many folks get their OC CCWs to "consolidate" our gains (political power), in the OC to make any attempt to switch back to vNI a political bloodbath....

If Peruta DOES go en banc (but not to SCOTUS), and we lose, Hutchens said she'd reevaluate the her policy again at that time. Our job is to get as many folks their CCWs before then (~1 year), so that we're too politically powerful for her to switch back (barring a CCWer turning into a nutcase and shooting up a school, or the like).

If Peruta gets cert and we lose, HI, CA, and the northeast anti states are all back in the political fight for getting local authorities to issue and/or to change state law/s to Shall Issue. Good luck with that!

If Peruta gets cert and we win, that's the end of that for the entire nation (until composition of SCOTUS changes and the law "evolves" ....).
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
180+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice

Last edited by Paladin; 03-25-2014 at 8:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-28-2015, 10:58 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,115
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Since Hutchens has abandoned vSI (SD = GC), McKay will resume once the Peruta-Richards en banc panel releases its decision.

Until then (my guess is before New Years Day), time for another sandwich and a nap....
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
180+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:13 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.