Hypothetical question about gun ownership after an arrest

[ChaoSS]

Hypothetically, let's say someone was arrested. They were taken to jail, given a misdemeanor citation, and released. This person shows up in court, where they are told the prosecutor hasn't filed charges and they are free to go. About 7 months later, this person buys a gun. The purchase happens through a licensed dealer, and the person undergoes the required background check and 10 day waiting period for California. About a year later, this person is trying to get a job, and is denied because of the results of a criminal background check. This person goes to court, thinking to get the arrest record expunged, and finds out that there has been an arrest warrant out for his arrest since sometime in between when he went to court, and when he underwent the background check. Let's say it was around a month after he went to court, so several months had passed by the time the gun was purchased.

Could this person now be committing a crime by possessing this gun? The charges were a misdemeanor assault on a police officer, which carries a maximum penalty of no more than one year in prison and up to 2000 dollars fine.

This person might be going to court to take care of this, but might want to know if he is breaking the law by having said gun at his home.

 

[One-Time]

Sounds bad, Id keep my guns regardless.

Gotta love beuracracy

 

[NavyLCDR]

1. "This person" should give his guns to a trusted friend on a loan basis. We are talking about California Gestapo here. Who knows what they will try to do.

2. "This person", by law, is NOT prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. Note the code below, the word is CONVICTED. NOT arrested or charged.

12021. (a)(1) Any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of the United States, of the State of California, or any other state, government, or country, or of an offense enumerated in subdivision (a), (b), or (d) of Section 12001.6, or who is addicted to the use of any narcotic drug, who owns, purchases, receives, or has in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony.

(2) Any person who has two or more convictions for violating paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 417 and who owns, purchases, receives, or has in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control any fir earm is guilty of a felony.

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), any person who has been convicted of a felony or of an offense enumerated in Section 12001.6, when that conviction results from certification by the juvenile court for prosecution as an adult in an adult court under Section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, who owns or has in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony.

(c)(1) Except as provided in subdivision (a) or paragraph (2) of this subdivision, any person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor violation of Section 71, 76, 136.1, 136.5, or 140, subdivision (d) of Section 148, Section 171b, 171c, 171d, 186.28, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244.5, 245, 245.5, 246.3, 247, 273.5, 273.6, 417, 417.6, 422, 626.9, 646.9, 12023 or 12024, subdivision (b) or (d) of Section 12034, Section 12040, subdivision (b) of Section 12072, subdivision (a) of former Section 12100, Section 12220, 12320, or 12590, or Section 8100, 8101, or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any firearm-related offense pursuant to Sections 871.5 and 1001.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or of the conduct punished in paragraph (3) of subdivision (g) of Section 12072, and who, within 10 years of the conviction, owns, purchases, receives, or has in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control, any firearm is guilty of a public offense, which shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine. The court, on forms prescribed by the Department of Justice, shall notify the department of persons subject to this subdivision. However, the prohibition in this paragraph may be reduced, eliminated, or conditioned as provided in paragraph (2) or (3).

 

[frankiestoys]

I hope someone can give you good advise on this ''hypothetical'' problem. Sounds like the court system has some holes in it, but we knew that!

 

[ChaoSS]

In CA, can this person lose his guns if convicted, since the maximum penalty is 1 year?

 

[ChaoSS]

I'm rambling now, but I'm trying to find the legal procedure for further prosecution after the person has shown up in court on the day agreed to and the prosecution failed to press charges. The law says that there must be a separate citation issued, or an arrest warrant, but I don't see the specifics on issuing a new citation. Hypothetically, notice was mailed out to said person, but it was sent to the wrong address.

 

[ArthurDent]

"Hypothetically" ...

"Hypothetically" ...

I would suggest hiring the best criminal defense lawyer you can afford, and then shut up to everyone else.

I would also suggest NOT posting anything about it on a public forum, as anything you do could weaken your case in court.

YMMV...

 

[ChaoSS]

Hypothetically this guy is broke and can't get a public defender until he shows up in court for arraignment.

 

[ChaoSS]

Anyway, not saying anything about the gun that the police don't already have a record of.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Hypothetically this guy is broke and can't get a public defender until he shows up in court for arraignment.

Sell the gun to pay a lawyer, hypothetically.

Keeping a clean record is harder than replacing a gun, not hypothetically.

 

[ChaoSS]

If a lawyer could be found for the pittance the gun would bring, hiring a lawyer wouldn't be as big of an issue.

 

[Frank Ettin]

In any case the person has a serious, real life legal problem. This sort of problem can't be adequately dealt with on the Internet. This person doesn't need the advice of anonymous denizens of a gun forum who may, or who may not, know what they are talking about.

This person should also stop discussing the situation in the forum. Anything posted here is not confidential. This is a public place, and it's a lousy idea to discuss personal and important legal matters with strangers in public.

This person needs a real live lawyer. Among other things, conversations with one's lawyer are confidential.

If this person can't afford a lawyer, he may need to borrow money from friends or relatives or do whatever he needs to to get a pubic defender.

 

[TexasRifleman]

If a lawyer could be found for the pittance the gun would bring, hiring a lawyer wouldn't be as big of an issue.

Oh, I understand it's very expensive. The risk here is great however. The immediate gun ownership isn't the central problem.

Somehow a lawyer needs to be found for this. Like fiddletown says, beg borrow or whatever, this could be a life changing thing if just left to run its course.

 

[xcgates]

Have a trustworthy friend take temporary custody of the firearm, go do what said person can do in the legal system, and keep quiet about it online.

 

[jonmerritt]

They are trying to charge you twice for the same crime from the same charge. Let them, you will own them even with a provided attorney. Sounds like basic paperwork screwup. Or the officer is throwing a tantrum.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The charges were a misdemeanor assault on a police officer, which carries a maximum penalty of no more than one year in prison and up to 2000 dollars fine.

Just to make sure the OP's question is answered, if the maximum penalty is not more than one year then it's not a disqualifying thing anyway so no, there should be no problem owning a gun even if convicted.

Federal law says "convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year".

 

[ChaoSS]

Thank you, TexasRifleman. I know that no one on here is a lawyer, or if they are, is going to give out internet advice. As for what's been posted, my hypothetical friend would have already posted as much online elsewhere while rambling about cops, after he had already been told that he was free and clear of the charges. Yeah, he's a hypothetical dumbass.


However, that answer from TR does clarify things, I thought that I had read somewhere (isn't that the most accurate source of information?) that 1 year and up was a disqualifying thing, and the reason why some states give penalties of one day short of a year.

Anyway, public defender has been contacted, another lawyer will at least be consulted, and the wheels are in motion in the courts, so we'll see what happens.

 

[DaveBeal]

Deleted.