CA legal then not legal to have a Firearm.

[Frog48]

The official quote is "Any person charged with a felony offense, pending resolution of the matter [Title 18, 922 (g)]."

Yep, I have. And you can too: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/hscsg.pdf

Thats fine and dandy... but if thats where the quote came from, you should have cited it as such, not as an "official quote" from the US Code, which it did not.

Sorry if I seem argumentative, but I'm a little OC about details, haha.

 

[HankB]

. . . the police went to his home where he was not living at the time and confiscated the gun. He's now been charged for being a convicted felon in possession of firearm. Not only was he not in possession, he wasn't living with his wife when they came by asking for the gun. He was living in another state.

This sounds very fishy to me . . . usually when illegal possession is charged its because there's a gun in the person's immediate vicinity he has access to; I've never heard of someone being "in possession" of something when they're not even in the same state.

Have they tried to extradite him back to CA? Might make for some interesting legal arguments . . .

He needs a lawyer.

 

[Zoogster]

ok... that 3 stike law.... seriously not cool.... lame.... totally lame...

sure, most of the time it probably does identify true habitual offenders - but what about the other times that some poor sap gets caught in the crossfire?.... well, like this (the OP's story) for example.

Oh that is nothing, you should see when they give someone 3 strikes for a single act that they stack on multiple charges for.
Technicaly you could go away for life for pulling your gun out on someone because you feel in danger and never even firing it. Assault with a deadly weapon, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, possession of a deadly weapon, and a dozen others.
Then there is other times where someone does something 20-30 years prior, and the strike is retroactively applied for something minor later on. In fact strikes can even be counted for offenses in other states, whether they were more or less severe in that state.

There is also no judicial discretion. Thier descretion is in charging in the first place, if someone is found guilty the 3 strikes law is mandatory and even if the judge feels it is a load of bull they must apply it.
CA puts more people in prison than any other state, has some of the strictest laws in the nation, and yet you are still more likely to be the victim of crime in CA than in most other states.
So the normal rhetoric you hear does not add up. The "well its because they only give them a slap on the wrist". The real reason is cultural.

 

[Harley Quinn]

I have been thinking that if your buddy was under 18 at the time he might have had a clause to expunge if he followed all the rules. But it appears he did not follow them to the letter of the law.
So now he needs to get a "LAWYER" Fast.

 

[Ed Ames]

Thats fine and dandy... but if thats where the quote came from, you should have cited it as such, not as an "official quote" from the US Code, which it did not.

I didn't cite code, or say it was code. Not to be OC about details but notice where the quotation mark is located: "...pending resolution of the matter [Title 18, 922 (g)]."

I even said where it was from if you go back through the thread a bit: "The rules are listed in the state-published booklet on handgun laws (which you basically need to read to legally buy a handgun in CA today)."

It is an official quote from an official government publication. Sad, maybe incorrect, but official. It's a CA DOJ publication which, despite the source, is handy because it contains the absolute MINIMUM any gun owner in California should know about guns and gun laws if they want to avoid being hauled off next time they go to the range. Reading it would have saved the guy in this thread a bunch of hurt.

 

[Frog48]

Fair enough.

It is unsettling, although not entirely surprising, that a government publication attempts to dumb-down the law for us common folks, and in the process gets the interpretation flat wrong.

 

[dave_pro2a]

B. Adams said "Even though his record was expunged by the state, he is still a convicted felon in the eyes of the ATF, and that's a tough thing to change. He should have been informed of this at some point during or after his trial or probation, and if he wasn't he should have asked. Cops don't like felons with guns."

Is that just a CA thing? Or is it a South Dakota thing?

Because in other states an expungement can restore ALL rights, including firearm rights. Obviously not for a Federal offense, but for a state offense it can in many states.

State conviction, serve sentence, get it expunged later, send notice to ATF and presto you have your rights back. Maybe that's not how it works in CA or SD though.

 

[.cheese.]

Zoogster - yet another reason I have no freaking desire to live in California.

My brother lives there, my mother wants me to move there too, and she wants to move there herself

All I can say to them is.... "why?"

 

[AirForceShooter]

G. Gordon Liddy gave his guns to his wife.
but, he's in Virginia.

AFS

 

[B. Adams]

Is that just a CA thing? Or is it a South Dakota thing?

It's not a South Dakota thing, it's just what I've heard about felons and the ATF. I'm not a felon so I don't have any experience with it, but I'm under the impression that it's very difficult to get your firearms rights restored, even if your other rights are restored by some other agency.

I'm hoping to never find out what it's like to be a felon and try to get my firearms rights restored, but perhaps there's someone out there who's gone through the process and can enlighten me a bit.

 

[Scorpiusdeus]

Just to clarify:

He does have an attorney, but no answer yet.

He was living in another state while attending medical school, but he and his wife are not divorced so the house is still in his name.

When he came back from school to CA for a break, he was arrested.

 

[romma]

Wow, I thought is took a lengthy time period to have an expungment after a cinviction? 5-10 years I thought depending on what state your talking about...

 

[Harley Quinn]

G. Gordon Liddy gave his guns to his wife.but, he's in Virginia.

Yes he did, but he did not assault a person and then leave the state, he went to prison and was a model prisoner and got to go home to his wife