Firearms rights restored after DV

[journeyman]

Has anyone here has had their firearms rights restored after a misdemeanor DV conviction or know of anyone? I know there is a way just wanted to know of any specific success stories. specifically 273.5 p.c. misdemeanor

[Liberty1]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=97498

[journeyman]

thanks for the link Lib1 but i was looking for something a little more specific to 273.5 convictions having firearms rights restored. a 17b motion affords no relief in that aspect nor does a 1203.4 just wanted to see if someone here has gone another route short of a governers pardon..:)

[E Pluribus Unum]

thanks for the link Lib1 but i was looking for something a little more specific to 273.5 convictions having firearms rights restored. a 17b motion affords no relief in that aspect nor does a 1203.4 just wanted to see if someone here has gone another route short of a governers pardon..:)

It can be done with an attorney. Don't try to do this one yourself.

[nicki]

Domestic Violence and loss of firearms rights is something that needs to be looked at carefully.

Certainly most people on this board are against Domestic Violence, but right now the current system needs to be seriously overhauled.

Most couples have issues, hell, we have close to a 50 percent divorce rate.

Perhaps reforming how we deal with domestic violence overall needs to be addressed.

I know two guys who got into a fight with their wives, wives call cops and they get arrested. They had to go through "anger management classes" for a year, that was about a 10K hit to the family budget.

What caused the guys to hit their wives. One had an affair, they worked things out, but the DA involvement did not help things.

The other guy was and to this day is constantly nagged by his wife, she is a real ***** and is emotionally abusive and still is.

He only stays because of his kids. He is a nice guy, his health is falling apart and I predict he will have a heart attack/stroke or both within the next 10 years from the stress she is constantly giving him.

Domestic Violence is also a tool that is being used in Divorce cases to get the upper hand in divorce settlements.

This is one of those trojan horses used to disqualify as many people from owning guns as possible without real due process.

Nicki

[anthonyca]

Domestic violence does not have to be that you hit anyone. One has to be caught up in this or have seen someone that was caught in this web to truly understand how insane it has become. In the ARMY we had many people discharged due to the lautenberg amendment. It is an ex post facto amendment and I was in service when is was enacted and it had a pretty large effect. Many older LEO and soldiers lost their career for an arrest that happened over 10 years ago and may not even have been considered DV at the time. Some of the people were not actually convicted of DV but were charged with it but the charges were dismissed or dropped and they plead to something such as vandalism or disorderly conduct for slamming a door or throwing a phone but not actually even touching anyone.

When you DROS a gun they will look at "non court documents" and "police reports" and a clerk can over rule a judge and decide if you should be banned for life of ever touching a firearm or ammo. If they decide from the "police report" that you acted with "boisterousness" or were "unreasonably loud" you can be banned for life. This is hearsay being held in higher reguard than a court ruling. Also if you are in the military or are a LEO you will be instantly discharged and loose your pension in most cases. All this even after a court, judge and jury has said the person did not commit the crime he or she was arrested for. Many states have to arrest someone if the police are called. How many people have had the police called on them by a neighbor for nefarious reasons due to an earlier disagreement? It is common.

Also if you are going through a divorce this is a common tactic to call the police on a spouse to create a record for child custody and support claims.
I do not belive anyone on this board justifies true abusers but it has gotten out of hand with people loosing their 2nd amendment rights for life for throwing a phone on the way out of the house.

I do not have children and do not want them. When I hear people talking about spanking their kids or threatening to spank them I warn them not to speak in public about that and they think I am a paranoid nut. A few of the looked up DV and found that it includes "anyoffensive touching" even if not in a violent nature and realized they could loose their 2nd amendment rights for life for sternly pulling their lazy kid out of bed in the morning. My little cousin informed his mom of the number they gave him to report anything like that.

This amendment and the way that NICS/ATF decides who is banned has so many unconsitutional rules the fact that it has been law for 12 years tells us the direction our republic is going. The ex post facto, double jeopardy by being punished years after the original sentence was served for hundreds of thousands of misdemeanants, the possibility of a misdemeanor being punished more harshly than a felony in the case that a felony can in some cases be expunged or pardoned but many states such as california do not recognize expungment as a restoration of rights and leave no other option and the over ruling of a judge and jury by a clerk in a NICS/ATF office.

http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/arnefariousmy_board_study_guide_topics/military_justice/lautenberg-amendment.shtml
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/mcdvbrochure.pdf

[E Pluribus Unum]

When you DROS a gun they will look at "non court documents" and "police reports" and a clerk can over rule a judge and decide if you should be banned for life of ever touching a firearm or ammo. If they decide from the "police report" that you acted with "boisterousness" or were "unreasonably loud" you can be banned for life. This is hearsay being held in higher reguard than a court ruling. Also if you are in the military or are a LEO you will be instantly discharged and loose your pension in most cases. All this even after a court, judge and jury has said the person did not commit the crime he or she was arrested for. Many states have to arrest someone if the police are called. How many people have had the police called on them by a neighbor for nefarious reasons due to an earlier disagreement? It is common.

I stopped reading after this paragraph... it is complete and utter FUD....

It is definitely bad, but its not as bad as you say.

Domestic Violence arrests without convictions are meaningless. My ex girlfriend's brother-in-law has been arrested around 6 times for domestic violence but there is never any evidence against him and his wife wont testify so the charges are dropped, or never filed. He buys guns on a regular basis. In the last case, all of his guns were taken just before deer season because of a Domestic Violence arrest so he went down to the gun store and bought a cheap rifle to use for the 2-3 months the cops had his guns. He DROS'd it, picked it up, and legally hunted all with pending domestic violence charges. If the wife doesn't pursue a protective order its perfectly legal.

[mymonkeyman]

If the conviction was for "Domestic Violence" in California (or any other crime where it was an element of the crime in the statute that the person to which violence was directed was a domestic: spouse or cohabitant) then you are 100% screwed in California because 1203.4 specifically does not restore firearms rights and thus under the GCA & Lautenberg amendment, federal firearms rights are not restored. If the crime is "Domestic Violence" then you have to wait for Congress to fund the ATF program that allows discretionary restoration of firearms rights. This didn't happen with Bush + Republican House + Republican Senate, so good luck with Democrats in control.

If the conviction was for something like simple Assault or simple Battery, but was against a domestic, then a Supreme Court case before the court may save you as the court may interpret the statute narrowly (unlike the ATF and other federal LEOs) to only include crimes like "Domestic Violence" and other crimes where violence directed to a domestic is an element of the crime.

[E Pluribus Unum]

If the conviction was for "Domestic Violence" in California (or any other crime where it was an element of the crime in the statute that the person to which violence was directed was a domestic: spouse or cohabitant) then you are 100% screwed in California because 1203.4 specifically does not restore firearms rights and thus under the GCA & Lautenberg amendment, federal firearms rights are not restored. If the crime is "Domestic Violence" then you have to wait for Congress to fund the ATF program that allows discretionary restoration of firearms rights. This didn't happen with Bush + Republican House + Republican Senate, so good luck with Democrats in control.

If the conviction was for something like simple Assault or simple Battery, but was against a domestic, then a Supreme Court case before the court may save you as the court may interpret the statute narrowly (unlike the ATF and other federal LEOs) to only include crimes like "Domestic Violence" and other crimes where violence directed to a domestic is an element of the crime.

In my view, Heller may change it.... after all, restricting firearms ownership from felons is one thing... if we all have a constitutional right to own guns, how can the federal government deny a right after commission of a misdemeanor.

That would be like saying "If you have committed a misdemeanor, you lose your right to vote".

[mymonkeyman]

In my view, Heller may change it.... after all, restricting firearms ownership from felons is one thing... if we all have a constitutional right to own guns, how can the federal government deny a right after commission of a misdemeanor.

That would be like saying "If you have committed a misdemeanor, you lose your right to vote".

Heller might, but certainly not at the Court of Appeals or district court level. Just see the Emerson case in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal, which was a 2nd amendment challenge to the Lautenberg amendment. The Court took an individual rights interpretation of the 2nd amendment (it was one of only 2 federal courts of appeal to do so, the other being the DC Circuit in Heller/Parker), but still found the Lautenberg amendment valid.

The constitutional/Heller arguments may or may not appear in Hayes, the SCOTUS Laugtenberg case. The question presented is statutory in nature, but the respondent may argue for a saving construction based on avoiding substantial 2nd amendment questions.

[journeyman]

I stopped reading after this paragraph... it is complete and utter FUD....

It is definitely bad, but its not as bad as you say.

Domestic Violence arrests without convictions are meaningless. My ex girlfriend's brother-in-law has been arrested around 6 times for domestic violence but there is never any evidence against him and his wife wont testify so the charges are dropped, or never filed. He buys guns on a regular basis. In the last case, all of his guns were taken just before deer season because of a Domestic Violence arrest so he went down to the gun store and bought a cheap rifle to use for the 2-3 months the cops had his guns. He DROS'd it, picked it up, and legally hunted all with pending domestic violence charges. If the wife doesn't pursue a protective order its perfectly legal.

Dont know what county bro in law lives in but in L.A. County namely city of Long Beach if police are called someones going to jail period and left to sort out with the courts regardless if the spouse wishes to press charges. sounds to me like bro in law "doesnt believe fat meat is greasy" he should probably ease up on that maybe one he'll get convicted and goodbye to Hunting forever!

[E Pluribus Unum]

Dont know what county bro in law lives in but in L.A. County namely city of Long Beach if police are called someones going to jail period and left to sort out with the courts regardless if the spouse wishes to press charges. sounds to me like bro in law "doesnt believe fat meat is greasy" he should probably ease up on that maybe one he'll get convicted and goodbye to Hunting forever!

It is that way only with domestic violence, not in general.

This statement:

Many states have to arrest someone if the police are called. How many people have had the police called on them by a neighbor for nefarious reasons due to an earlier disagreement? It is common.

This infers that if the police are called for any reason (even nefarious reasons not related to DV) someone is going to jail.

Neither this, nor anything else he said in that paragraph is true.

[journeyman]

correct for domestic violence.. as i can speak only for L.A. County but by most accounts it seems state wide

[motorhead]

here and many other states, arrest is required if ANY signs of injury are present.

[E Pluribus Unum]

here and many other states, arrest is required if ANY signs of injury are present.

That is the general rule. I was actually arrested with no signs of injury at all. Charges were never filed because there was no evidence. The entire time they were cuffing me and removing my guns from the house she was telling them I didn't hurt her. Her only statement was "he grabbed my hand".

As I said, DV is a crying shame but going as far to say that whenever the cops are called, someone must go to jail is just not true.

[Ding126]

Black powder may be an option??

[E Pluribus Unum]

Black powder may be an option??

The consensus I have heard there is that it works federally, but not in California.

The person would be able to buy the Black Powder firearm, and own the black powder firearm but as soon as it contained a projectile, a bullet, and a primer cap it is considered a firearm under California law.

I think he could live (or hunt) in a free state with BP firearms, but not in California.

[tyrist]

Domestic violence does not have to be that you hit anyone. One has to be caught up in this or have seen someone that was caught in this web to truly understand how insane it has become. In the ARMY we had many people discharged due to the lautenberg amendment. It is an ex post facto amendment and I was in service when is was enacted and it had a pretty large effect. Many older LEO and soldiers lost their career for an arrest that happened over 10 years ago and may not even have been considered DV at the time. Some of the people were not actually convicted of DV but were charged with it but the charges were dismissed or dropped and they plead to something such as vandalism or disorderly conduct for slamming a door or throwing a phone but not actually even touching anyone.

When you DROS a gun they will look at "non court documents" and "police reports" and a clerk can over rule a judge and decide if you should be banned for life of ever touching a firearm or ammo. If they decide from the "police report" that you acted with "boisterousness" or were "unreasonably loud" you can be banned for life. This is hearsay being held in higher reguard than a court ruling. Also if you are in the military or are a LEO you will be instantly discharged and loose your pension in most cases. All this even after a court, judge and jury has said the person did not commit the crime he or she was arrested for. Many states have to arrest someone if the police are called. How many people have had the police called on them by a neighbor for nefarious reasons due to an earlier disagreement? It is common.

Also if you are going through a divorce this is a common tactic to call the police on a spouse to create a record for child custody and support claims.
I do not belive anyone on this board justifies true abusers but it has gotten out of hand with people loosing their 2nd amendment rights for life for throwing a phone on the way out of the house.

I do not have children and do not want them. When I hear people talking about spanking their kids or threatening to spank them I warn them not to speak in public about that and they think I am a paranoid nut. A few of the looked up DV and found that it includes "anyoffensive touching" even if not in a violent nature and realized they could loose their 2nd amendment rights for life for sternly pulling their lazy kid out of bed in the morning. My little cousin informed his mom of the number they gave him to report anything like that.

This amendment and the way that NICS/ATF decides who is banned has so many unconsitutional rules the fact that it has been law for 12 years tells us the direction our republic is going. The ex post facto, double jeopardy by being punished years after the original sentence was served for hundreds of thousands of misdemeanants, the possibility of a misdemeanor being punished more harshly than a felony in the case that a felony can in some cases be expunged or pardoned but many states such as california do not recognize expungment as a restoration of rights and leave no other option and the over ruling of a judge and jury by a clerk in a NICS/ATF office.

http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/arnefariousmy_board_study_guide_topics/military_justice/lautenberg-amendment.shtml
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/mcdvbrochure.pdf

Domestic violence charges do not cover children or anyone else unless one of the following relationships is established:

Dating/former Dating
Engaged/former Engaged
Married/Divorced
Cohabitant/former Cohabitant (must be a romatic cohabitant)
Child in Common

You can get into a physical fight with your sister/brother/mother/friend /uncle/cousin/etc . You will get a battery charge or potentally a felony batter if injuries are extensive enough but you will not get a 273.5 PC or 243(e)(1) conviction. I don't get why people seem to think that anyone living in the home is covered by the domestic violence sections. This only applies to California.

[mymonkeyman]

Domestic violence charges do not cover children or anyone else unless one of the following relationships is established:

Dating/former Dating
Engaged/former Engaged
Married/Divorced
Cohabitant/former Cohabitant (must be a romatic cohabitant)
Child in Common

You can get into a physical fight with your sister/brother/mother/friend /uncle/cousin/etc . You will get a battery charge or potentally a felony batter if injuries are extensive enough but you will not get a 273.5 PC or 243(e)(1) conviction. I don't get why people seem to think that anyone living in the home is covered by the domestic violence sections. This only applies to California.

California law is not what's directly at issue, the Laugtenburg amendment says "has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim."

Lautenberg Amendment includes children. Depending on the outcome of the Hayes case: that either means 1) any crime of violence where the victim was your kid means you are ineligible for firearms for life (i.e. simple battery charge where victim was your kid) or 2) California statutory child abuse charges are also disqualifying under the Lautenberg Amendment.

[tyrist]

That is the general rule. I was actually arrested with no signs of injury at all. Charges were never filed because there was no evidence. The entire time they were cuffing me and removing my guns from the house she was telling them I didn't hurt her. Her only statement was "he grabbed my hand".

As I said, DV is a crying shame but going as far to say that whenever the cops are called, someone must go to jail is just not true.

If somebody calls us and it is domestic violence somebody is going to jail. We are forced to do this. If it is a cohabitant/former cohabitant/child in common/married/divorce and there is injury its the felony 273.5 PC arrest. If there is no visable injury it's 243(e)(1) PC. If you get into a fight with your wife and touch her and the police are called out we are forced to take you into custody even if the victim tells us not to. I don't agree with it personally but you can thank OJ simpson for this requirement placed on law enforcement.



as far as the Lautenberg Amendment is there any due process if a clerk is the decision?

[journeyman]

well i was told by a police officer from Long Beach that if they are called for a DV someone is going to jail INJURIES OR NOT and that the person that didnt make the call to 911 usually is the one that goes!!! may not be true but seems like the way thing are done in long beach and a couple of other areas ive heard of!

[journeyman]

furthermore a friend of mine moved his wife from blocking the front door while he was trying to leave and was arrested and charged with 273.5 pc

[anthonyca]

I stopped reading after this paragraph... it is complete and utter FUD....

It is definitely bad, but its not as bad as you say.

Domestic Violence arrests without convictions are meaningless. My ex girlfriend's brother-in-law has been arrested around 6 times for domestic violence but there is never any evidence against him and his wife wont testify so the charges are dropped, or never filed. He buys guns on a regular basis. In the last case, all of his guns were taken just before deer season because of a Domestic Violence arrest so he went down to the gun store and bought a cheap rifle to use for the 2-3 months the cops had his guns. He DROS'd it, picked it up, and legally hunted all with pending domestic violence charges. If the wife doesn't pursue a protective order its perfectly legal.

I said if you are arrested and plead to anything else even if it is not DV. If all charges are dropped or dismissed then you are ok. Most people think since they dropped the domestic part and said just plea down to disorderly conduct that they are off its not true, If you did not stop reading you would have seen that.

[anthonyca]

It is that way only with domestic violence, not in general.

This statement:



This infers that if the police are called for any reason (even nefarious reasons not related to DV) someone is going to jail.

Neither this, nor anything else he said in that paragraph is true.

I did not say if they were called for anything I was only referring if they were called for DV.

[E Pluribus Unum]

I said if you are arrested and plead to anything else even if it is not DV.

Thats not what I had a problem with. This is:

When you DROS a gun they will look at "non court documents" and "police reports" and a clerk can over rule a judge and decide if you should be banned for life of ever touching a firearm or ammo. If they decide from the "police report" that you acted with "boisterousness" or were "unreasonably loud" you can be banned for life. This is hearsay being held in higher reguard than a court ruling... All this even after a court, judge and jury has said the person did not commit the crime he or she was arrested for.

Most people think since they dropped the domestic part and said just plea down to disorderly conduct that they are off its not true, If you did not stop reading you would have seen that.

Respectfully, I feel you are incorrect. You have either been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence or you have not. There are other misdemeanor charges that restrict firearms ownership but if you are arrested for domestic violence and plea it down to a non-restricting misdemeanor then you are fine. No "clerk" can make an arbitrary decision to ban you from firearms.

[anthonyca]

Thats not what I had a problem with. This is:





Respectfully, I feel you are incorrect. You have either been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence or you have not. There are other misdemeanor charges that restrict firearms ownership but if you are arrested for domestic violence and plea it down to a non-restricting misdemeanor then you are fine. No "clerk" can make an arbitrary decision to ban you from firearms.

I would have felt that way also until I was in the ARMY and saw what lautenberg did to people's career and researched this problem.
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/mcdvbrochure.pdf

"Once the NICS establishes that the requisite domestic relationship is present, which is typically made by reference to the police report"

I know of at least one case where the court removed the DV charges, due to the soldier and the alleged "victim" who did not call the police and would not co operate, were just casual dating and did not meet the DV status due the the law. The nics used the police report to ban the soldier for life from ever touching a weapon or ammo by reading the police report and charging documents even though he has the docket from the court and all paperwork signed by a judge showing that the DV charges were dismissed. His mistake was pleading to a lesser charge in the same case after being falsely counseled by his lawyer that he could just have it expunged and none of this would affect his career. He even has the letter from his lawyer stating how it "accurred" to her that this may affect his gun ownership rights after the case was over and he asked what went wrong. This was all in the 90's when the lautenberg amendment was pretty new. If he knew there was any possibility of this he would not have plead to anything and went all the way to trial. Now he is listed federally as permanetly banned and his ARMY career and planned LEO career is over.

He has been fighting this but has not gotten very far. This is like the DMV on steroids. A few lawyers have told him that in a perfect worlds he would have a great case but in the real world we are in he should not spend 10k plus since he will most likely get no where.

In the example you gave of the guy who was arrested many times and still able to legally purchase a gun this guy I am referring to is on the other end of all the bureaucracy. A very few people fall through the cracks and some get caught up in them unjustly. I would suggest that that guy get as far away from that relationship as possible.

Thank you for saying that you respectfully disagree with me for we are all learning from each other here and many of the people like to judge and jump on people without looking deeper. I felt very differently about the law and DV until I saw how crazy it has become and people's lives are being ruined by the government.

People should not be victimized by spouses or the government. People have been arrested for DV as in California if the police are called one of you are going to jail, then they plead to vandalism for throwing a cell phone or disorderly conduct for yelling and slaming thier own front door on the way out and never touched anyone then they are caught up in this and banned for life. The problem is if someone is caught up in this there is no real recourse to fix it. You just get voice mails and government people telling you that there is no funding for them to look into if you were unjustly treated even if you have all the evidence.