PDA

View Full Version : people v. kim to be argued today


journeyman
01-07-2009, 11:05 AM
this case will decide if restoration of firearms rights can be restored after a misdemeanor conviction this is of special interest to those convicted of MCDV
that loss their right to possess a firearm for life under the lautenberg amendment a lot of LEOs lost their jobs because of this.....what say you?

xxdabroxx
01-07-2009, 11:22 AM
1 MCDV should not take away your rights forever, i am sure there are plenty we were drunk, wife slapped the "s" outta me i shoved her and ended up in jail instances out there. Maybe 3 offenses and you lose them, because at that point it has become a habit.

Fjold
01-07-2009, 11:24 AM
Is this in SCOTUS?

journeyman
01-07-2009, 11:30 AM
california supreme court

Mayhem
01-07-2009, 11:37 AM
I think it's 7 or 10 years not life?

sorensen440
01-07-2009, 11:50 AM
I think it's 7 or 10 years not life?

Depends but either way its a load of crap

journeyman
01-07-2009, 11:54 AM
its a lifetime ban federally with the lautenberg amendment. Its 10 yrs state there lies the problem many people plead no contest and were told they were banned for 10 yrs after ten yrs pass tried to dros a weapon and were told they were subject to a lifetime ban under federal law and the law is ex post facto...subsequently a bunch of LEOs who had a DV years ago were suddenly subject to this new law were stripped of their weapons and had to go take a desk job or resign......also there were quite a bit of attorneys who advise their client to plea out not knowing the federal law would subject their client to a lifetime ban....

6172crew
01-07-2009, 12:01 PM
Depends but either way its a load of crap
Winner! My ex used to throw stuff at me when she was pissed and if she had somthing heavy I'd grab her arms. If it left mark I'd be in jail as far as the law goes.

journeyman
01-07-2009, 12:04 PM
I think it's 7 or 10 years not life?

lifetime

Sutcliffe
01-07-2009, 12:26 PM
A cop without a gun or a soldier without a rifle is worth what? I think this is another instance of 'some animals are more equal than others'. Take away their weapons and their livelihood goes away.
Anybody with some experiance regarding the issue?

journeyman
01-07-2009, 12:30 PM
A cop without a gun or a soldier without a rifle is worth what? I think this is another instance of 'some animals are more equal than others'. Take away their weapons and their livelihood goes away.
Anybody with some experiance regarding the issue?

or trick or treating without a mask!!!

DDT
01-07-2009, 12:41 PM
The whole DV thing is bogus. There is an automatic assumption that the man is to blame until proven otherwise. DV should be treated like any other assault with the exception that the repeat offender should be punished more severely.

tmuller
01-07-2009, 1:28 PM
Let me start by saying that life long revocation of rights for MCDV I do not support. However, those that beat, slap, shove, etc women or children need to not have access to firearms until they can prove they can restrain themselves. 5, 7, 10 years is ok by me. Flame suit on.


i am sure there are plenty we were drunk, wife slapped the "s" outta me i shoved her and ended up in jail instances out there

and this is ok? If you know your wife is crazy when drunk keep her away from the booze or get a divorce.

My ex used to throw stuff at me when she was pissed and if she had somthing heavy I'd grab her arms.

You did the right thing by making her your Ex. My wife threw a remote control at me many years ago when we were still dating. I left immediately for the night and told her if she ever put me in that situation again it would lead to a brakup/divorce as quick as an affair would.

IMHO this restriction is about being able to control yourself. If you can't restrain from picking on a woman or child, that is part of your family, than how can you use proper restraint when dealing with a deadly weapon. Again, just my .02 probably all it's worth.

99sparks
01-07-2009, 1:35 PM
It happens. Any one know about this? http://www.petitiononline.com/658104/

DDT
01-07-2009, 1:43 PM
If you can't restrain from picking on a woman or child, that is part of your family, than how can you use proper restraint when dealing with a deadly weapon. Again, just my .02 probably all it's worth.

If you can't restrain yourself from picking on ANYONE I don't want you with a firearm.

I certainly don't think anyone should have a firearm if they are "picking on a woman or child" but the fact of the matter is that there is almost zero acknowledgment of mutual combat or self-protection for a man against a woman in a domestic situation. If you strike back you will go to jail and be convicted.

The other problem is that removing a firearm from the situation doesn't remove the danger for the woman in your "picking on" scenario. The guy still has his fists, the kitchen knives, the car etc. at his disposal to do damage if he so chooses. In most cases a knife will be closer and more immediately usable in an assault. Are you also in favor of removing all sharp objects from the home or are guns somehow inherently worse than a knife?

tmuller
01-07-2009, 1:51 PM
the fact of the matter is that there is almost zero acknowledgment of mutual combat or self-protection for a man against a woman in a domestic situation. If you strike back you will go to jail and be convicted.

Agreed. Don't strike back very simple.

The other problem is that removing a firearm from the situation doesn't remove the danger for the woman in your "picking on" scenario. The guy still has his fists, the kitchen knives, the car etc. at his disposal to do damage if he so chooses. In most cases a knife will be closer and more immediately usable in an assault. Are you also in favor of removing all sharp objects from the home or are guns somehow inherently worse than a knife?

Of course he could beat HER or stab HER or run HER over or whatever. This is not the point. Again, my issue is with restraint. He may choose to hurt her dumb a** if she sticks around but I don't want a guy who can not control/restrain himself with a gun because of the danger it poses to other people. Not here to argue just explain my position.

DDT
01-07-2009, 1:57 PM
Of course he could beat HER or stab HER or run HER over or whatever. This is not the point. Again, my issue is with restraint.

So, why take away his right to own a firearm but not any of the other weapons? Are firearms inherently more dangerous?

tmuller
01-07-2009, 2:16 PM
So, why take away his right to own a firearm but not any of the other weapons? Are firearms inherently more dangerous?

This reminds me of an argument a pathologist friend made one time. He found the cause of death to be an ingested staple and his logic was that if staples are used incorrectly they can cause death so might as well be banned too. I hope you can see the logical fallacy here.

In short, yes guns are more dangerous than a kitchen knife or car. In addition they do not generally serve the same purpose. I knew this would be an unpopular opinion on calguns.net but I've never cared about popularity.

99sparks
01-07-2009, 2:17 PM
Or while attacking you she can kick you... leave a mark on toe... tell the police you hit her toe... show them the mark... she is 95 lb and you are... some what larger... you still go to jail.

journeyman
01-07-2009, 2:56 PM
the law goes too far all it takes is an accusation then someone goes to jail has to get to work before they lose their job lawyer says plead no contest get out of jail today.....right to possess a firearm gone forever and its not just man against woman....roomate, brother,sister,friend....swat your kid on the bottom and someone or the kid calls 911 and you go to jail... lose your rights forever....or bump your girlfriend on your way out the door 20 yrs ago which resulted in nothing more than a fine back then and lose your rights forever 20yrs after the fact

grammaton76
01-07-2009, 3:09 PM
Or if the neighbors call the cops complaining about "yelling", and she has an unrelated injury... chances are good they're going to "coach" her into saying just the wrong thing to establish minimum PC to hook you up for DV.

This has happened.

sorensen440
01-07-2009, 3:21 PM
Or if the neighbors call the cops complaining about "yelling", and she has an unrelated injury... chances are good they're going to "coach" her into saying just the wrong thing to establish minimum PC to hook you up for DV.

This has happened.

If they see an injury on her they will often arrest the guy regardless of her statement

Many guys have made a deal and pleaded no contest not realizing that they were signing away there firearms rights as well....

nick
01-07-2009, 3:31 PM
Let's not forget that DV claims are pretty much automatic in Californian divorces, same as restraining orders. When the system is that abused, I don't think it can be used to determine whether or not to take away someone's right.

jacques
01-07-2009, 3:37 PM
Agreed. Don't strike back very simple.



Of course he could beat HER or stab HER or run HER over or whatever. This is not the point. Again, my issue is with restraint. He may choose to hurt her dumb a** if she sticks around but I don't want a guy who can not control/restrain himself with a gun because of the danger it poses to other people. Not here to argue just explain my position.

Agreed, take the brunt of it, no matter what. I ended up with two broken ribs. Had stuff thrown at me and was hit many times. But I never laid a finger on her. She went out and had an affair, and that pretty much sealed the divorce. She is an alcoholic. I never called the cops. But I can tell you, when I talked to my lawyer, he said do not have any contact with her at all, all she has to do is bruise herself, call the cops, and I go to jail. He said he had seen that happen many, many times.

I think your points are well taken, and I agree that people with out of control anger problems, to the point of domestic violence, should not have firearms.

The problem here is that there are a lot of people with convictions that probably did nothing. Until recently, it was a hands down domestic violence charge just because "she said so".

nick
01-07-2009, 3:46 PM
Agreed, take the brunt of it, no matter what. I ended up with two broken ribs. Had stuff thrown at me and was hit many times. But I never laid a finger on her. She went out and had an affair, and that pretty much sealed the divorce. She is an alcoholic. I never called the cops. But I can tell you, when I talked to my lawyer, he said do not have any contact with her at all, all she has to do is bruise herself, call the cops, and I go to jail. He said he had seen that happen many, many times.

I think your points are well taken, and I agree that people with out of control anger problems, to the point of domestic violence, should not have firearms.

The problem here is that there are a lot of people with convictions that probably did nothing. Until recently, it was a hands down domestic violence charge just because "she said so".

Well, my brother's soon-to-be-ex-wife attacked him several times, and he, knowing that if he even tries to block her punches he'd be the one going to jail, didn't resist and just covered their child with his body. He's gotten a restraining order against her, after spending weeks to convince the judge that a woman was, in fact, the attacker (and it took several more such episodes where she beat up the kids before the judge believed that). He got off with a light concussion and cracked forearm (she takes karate lessons). When she came in anyway, with a restraining order issued against her, and he called the cops, when the cops came, they tried to arrest him right away, and I had to explain to them that HE wasn't the one the restraining order was against. Moreover, if he broke the restraining order as many times as his ex-wife did, he'd be in jail for a while now. She just comes to court, cries a bit, and the judge lets it slide. That's with 3 criminal cases pending against her. So once again, with the system this screwed up, I don't think it can be used to determine the revocation of someone's right until it's fixed.

The interesting part is that two days after the first assault she was seen hitting her legs, and she then claimed that he beat her up during that first assault. Luckily, she was dumb about it and enough people saw her self-inflicting the bruises, including their kids, but the judge almost issued the restraining order against my brother right there (I was in the courtroom), before my brother and his lawyer was even allowed to speak (and present witnesses).Luckily, they were allowed to speak and present their witnesses, after all.

journeyman
01-07-2009, 4:00 PM
yeah and if you get hit with a TRO and try to dros a firearm you will get denied before you have your day in court.....if it is a true domestic violence incident i mean someone gets punched or like others have said broken bones the it should be charges as a straight felony the theres no room for complaint about firearms being a convicted felon and all

journeyman
01-07-2009, 4:05 PM
Or if the neighbors call the cops complaining about "yelling", and she has an unrelated injury... chances are good they're going to "coach" her into saying just the wrong thing to establish minimum PC to hook you up for DV.

This has happened.


Yes it Has!!!

N6ATF
01-07-2009, 4:44 PM
The whole DV thing is bogus. There is an automatic assumption that the man is to blame until proven otherwise. DV should be treated like any other assault with the exception that the repeat offender should be punished more severely.

Yep. I was sworn on a jury which went to mistrial due to unavailability of defense witness.

The wife got pissed, started throwing things, he tried to restrain her, she scratched him and dug in with her nails so bad blood was drawn, he grabbed the nearest object, a piece of belt, and slapped her with it to get her to release. The police photos clearly showed he was the victim by far, not the aggressor.

Rookie ADA hopefully dropped charges after all of us said not guilty in the post-mistrial interviews.

It seems like most of the DV participants out there just need an automatic mutual restraining order. They are separated for months to a year. If they want to get back together, they are forever on probation. If they DV again, they stay in jail until they decide to divorce (if married), or immediately move at least 1,000 miles away (if unmarried).

Codelphious
01-07-2009, 4:51 PM
I don't know why someone would take a beating from their wife/gf. Unless she's much bigger than you, it's generally easy to restrain a woman and not cause bodily injury.

Funny that people have been beaten multiple times... ouch. If things ever got violent I'd be audi 5000 right quick. Definitely wouldn't be back for a second dose.

anthonyca
01-07-2009, 4:55 PM
Winner! My ex used to throw stuff at me when she was pissed and if she had somthing heavy I'd grab her arms. If it left mark I'd be in jail as far as the law goes.

You don't have to leave a mark. Look up battery. Any unwanted touching. Also a disorderly conduct charge or disturbing the peace can get you banned for life also if you are arrested for domestic disorderly. I know someone who was kicked out of the ARMY for slamming the front door. I was in the ARMY when the Lautenberg ammendment was passed and saw many people loose their pension. Some served in Vietnam then came back in the reserve during desert storm then stayed to get thier 20 and were banned for a mist. that happened 20 years before.

Unlawful use of force is really any type of force. This means that you could be charged and convicted of this crime even if there are no visible marks and even if your partner doesn’t consider this act a violent act. Any physical act against you partner could fit within the legal definition of battery.

Mandates that police remove all firearms at domestic violence scenes (SB 218).

Any of the following relationships could be considered domestic:

Spouse or former spouse
Someone you are dating
Someone you formerly dated
Roommate or former roommate
Parent of your child
Family including parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and 1st cousins

Typical criminal offenses that are charged in a domestic violence case are:

PC 273.5—Spousal Abuse
PC 242-243(e)(1)—Battery
PC 240-241(a)—Assault
PC 422—Criminal Threats
PC 653m(a)—Threatening phone call
PC 591—Damage phone/cable/ or TV line
PC 136.1(B)(1)—Intimidating a witness or victim

One of my former soldiers had to do the 52 week program. There was a guy in there who pleaded guilty to ripping the phone out of the wall because his wife had a tendancy to pick it up and start dialing while he was on business calls. No threats or hitting just grabbed it after it was hung up and no one was touching it and the line broke. She told a friend about it while ragging on their husbands and her friend later called the police. He admitted it because he didn't think he did anything wrong to his own phone. Now he is banned for life from ever touching a firearm or ammo. He was some kind of financial advisor and can not work as high profile as he was due to the back ground checks that still show up for certian checks even after being expunged in california.

CSACANNONEER
01-07-2009, 4:57 PM
I don't know why someone would take a beating from their wife/gf. Unless she's much bigger than you, it's generally easy to restrain a woman and not cause bodily injury.

Funny that people have been beaten multiple times... ouch. If things ever got violent I'd be audi 5000 right quick. Definitely wouldn't be back for a second dose.

You don't get it. If you "restrain" a violent attacker who happens to be a small female, more than likely, YOU WILL BE CHARGED with attacking her!

journeyman
01-07-2009, 5:01 PM
You don't get it. If you "restrain" a violent attacker who happens to be a small female, more than likely, YOU WILL BE CHARGED with attacking her!

seems unfathomable to some until it happens to them:(

GuyW
01-07-2009, 5:02 PM
A cop without a gun or a soldier without a rifle is worth what? ....Take away their weapons and their livelihood goes away.

Where were their police unions?
.

journeyman
01-07-2009, 5:05 PM
Where were their police unions?
.

Law Enforcement Alliance of America is an active supporter of People v. Kim unions were powerless as many never saw this law coming and when they did for most it was too late...

GuyW
01-07-2009, 5:08 PM
unions were powerless as many never saw this law coming and when they did for most it was too late...

...too busy villifying guns...

.

journeyman
01-07-2009, 5:11 PM
this law was designed for disarmament purposes as it has affected quite a bit of people and as far as the LEOs and the Military personnel that got caught up in this crap well collateral damage compared to the thousands of others that loss their rights

nick
01-07-2009, 5:12 PM
I don't know why someone would take a beating from their wife/gf. Unless she's much bigger than you, it's generally easy to restrain a woman and not cause bodily injury.

Funny that people have been beaten multiple times... ouch. If things ever got violent I'd be audi 5000 right quick. Definitely wouldn't be back for a second dose.

It's quite simple. If there're any marks on her after this, you go to jail, courtesy of our screwed up justice, er, legal system.

Mayhem
01-07-2009, 5:35 PM
So much for taking a friend of mine hunting he has a bogus DV charge back from 94. I knew about the state 10 year but not the fed. To be honest I think it's a bit extreme specially when it's easy to "plead out" to a false charge. Guess now days if you want to keep your rights you need to fight everything tooth and nail.

But good god I thought the 10 year was bad, considering how easily it is for false accusations and false convictions.

anthonyca
01-07-2009, 5:56 PM
You don't have to leave a mark. Look up battery. Any unwanted touching. Also a disorderly conduct charge or disturbing the peace can get you banned for life also if you are arrested for domestic disorderly. I know someone who was kicked out of the ARMY for slamming the front door. I was in the ARMY when the Lautenberg ammendment was passed and saw many people loose their pension. Some served in Vietnam then came back in the reserve during desert storm then stayed to get thier 20 and were banned for a mist. that happened 20 years before.

Unlawful use of force is really any type of force. This means that you could be charged and convicted of this crime even if there are no visible marks and even if your partner doesn’t consider this act a violent act. Any physical act against you partner could fit within the legal definition of battery.

Mandates that police remove all firearms at domestic violence scenes (SB 218).

Any of the following relationships could be considered domestic:

Spouse or former spouse
Someone you are dating
Someone you formerly dated
Roommate or former roommate
Parent of your child
Family including parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and 1st cousins

Typical criminal offenses that are charged in a domestic violence case are:

PC 273.5—Spousal Abuse
PC 242-243(e)(1)—Battery
PC 240-241(a)—Assault
PC 422—Criminal Threats
PC 653m(a)—Threatening phone call
PC 591—Damage phone/cable/ or TV line
PC 136.1(B)(1)—Intimidating a witness or victim

One of my former soldiers had to do the 52 week program. There was a guy in there who pleaded guilty to ripping the phone out of the wall because his wife had a tendancy to pick it up and start dialing while he was on business calls. No threats or hitting just grabbed it after it was hung up and no one was touching it and the line broke. She told a friend about it while ragging on their husbands and her friend later called the police. He admitted it because he didn't think he did anything wrong to his own phone. Now he is banned for life from ever touching a firearm or ammo. He was some kind of financial advisor and can not work as high profile as he was due to the back ground checks that still show up for certian checks even after being expunged in california.

I just quoted myself becaus by the time I typed this a whole other page was added and I think most of you should read this.

nick
01-07-2009, 6:58 PM
Guess now days if you want to keep your rights you need to fight everything tooth and nail.

You got that right. Oh well, we do need change. It's not the Obama change though, whatever that is.

GuyW
01-07-2009, 7:01 PM
So much for taking a friend of mine hunting he has a bogus DV charge back from 94.

He can hunt...

Archery....

.20 cal air rifle is legal for turkey...

...don't remember right now about muzzleloader ownership...

badicedog
01-07-2009, 7:11 PM
I can see this being a huge problem for gun owners going thru a bitter divorce. could be used as a vindictive tactic from a soon to be ex spouse....What say you?

DDT
01-07-2009, 7:33 PM
In short, yes guns are more dangerous than a kitchen knife or car. In addition they do not generally serve the same purpose. I knew this would be an unpopular opinion on calguns.net but I've never cared about popularity.

Unpopular, yes, but as long as you understand that you are blaming the gun and not the criminal you are certainly welcome to your opinion.

nick
01-07-2009, 7:46 PM
I can see this being a huge problem for gun owners going thru a bitter divorce. could be used as a vindictive tactic from a soon to be ex spouse....What say you?

Well, yes. In my short time on Calguns I've already seen several divorce sales. Picked up some nice guns, too.

anthonyca
01-07-2009, 8:20 PM
I can see this being a huge problem for gun owners going thru a bitter divorce. could be used as a vindictive tactic from a soon to be ex spouse....What say you?

Happens frequently. I say it is blackmail.

ENVYGREEN
01-07-2009, 8:35 PM
http://www.petitiononline.com/658104/petition.html

MP301
01-07-2009, 11:34 PM
I did a search for the court case for People vs Kim and cant find anything. Anyone have a link?

JDay
01-07-2009, 11:59 PM
It happens. Any one know about this? http://www.petitiononline.com/658104/

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/p/petitions.htm

ONLINE PETITIONS
The online petitions that ask you to register your name at a website potentially carry more clout because they ask for names and addresses, although there is still the lack of a signature (unless electronic signatures become popular for petitions). That leaves open the question of whether the names and addresses have been fabricated or borrowed.

The biggest question with regard to online petitions, however, is who is sponsoring them and why? This is where it gets a little slippery.

One of the largest online petition websites does not list the names of any of the people running it, has no information about the organization or organizations associated with it, if any, and gives no evidence that the petitions they sponsor have been presented to politicians.. Yet hundreds of thousands of people have given this website their personal information including addresses, business information, and email addresses.

If the website was not committed to the petition campaigns, why would it exist?

The answer is: mailing lists.

Those hundreds of thousands of names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses are a gold mine for marketers who use the lists to send various kinds of solicitations and they can make a fortune renting or selling the names to other businesses. The online petition sites have been a sensational source of not only new names for mailing lists but names of people who can be identified as having particular interests such as supporting conservative or liberal causes, environmental issues, animals rights, etc.

There is nothing wrong with businesses and other organizations accumulating mailing lists and there is nothing wrong with any of us ending up on one...as long as we know and give approval for it.

If you are tempted to sign an online petition, make sure the sponsoring site either discloses, or responds to your questions about, several things:

1. Who owns, sponsors, or runs the site either individually or organizationally? Don't accept vague descriptions such as, "Our site has been organized by people who believe in protecting the environment." What are the names of the individuals or groups involved?
2. Can they attest that their petitions have been presented to people or organizations where the petitions would do any good? Will they give specifics so you could check out their claims?
3. Will they honor your request to not be included in any mailing list. All you want to do is sign the petition and be on your way.

JDay
01-08-2009, 12:10 AM
Or if the neighbors call the cops complaining about "yelling", and she has an unrelated injury... chances are good they're going to "coach" her into saying just the wrong thing to establish minimum PC to hook you up for DV.

This has happened.

Iirc they have to book you for domestic violence no matter what she says in that instance.

JDay
01-08-2009, 12:29 AM
He can hunt...

Archery....

.20 cal air rifle is legal for turkey...

...don't remember right now about muzzleloader ownership...

Afaik anyone can own muzzle loaders.

journeyman
01-08-2009, 5:26 AM
I did a search for the court case for People vs Kim and cant find anything. Anyone have a link?

try this



http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/articles-memoranda-and-commentary/78-commentary/582-oral-arguments-scheduled-in-rights-restoration-cases.html

CSACANNONEER
01-08-2009, 5:33 AM
Afaik anyone can own muzzle loaders.

Not according to DOJ. I called them about taking a convicted felon to participate in a civil war re-enactment and was strongly advised against it. A muzzleloader is considered a firearm when it is loaded.

dustoff31
01-08-2009, 8:05 AM
this case will decide if restoration of firearms rights can be restored after a misdemeanor conviction this is of special interest to those convicted of MCDV
that loss their right to possess a firearm for life under the lautenberg amendment a lot of LEOs lost their jobs because of this.....what say you?

So if there is a federal loss of rights upon conviction, why would it matter what a state court says?

99sparks
01-08-2009, 8:20 AM
So if it is a city charge of DV reduced to Disorderly Conduct (2005 not in CA) and you are told pay $200 fine keep your guns and go on your way. You are still hit federally! Now if it is expunged (City Charge in the state this happened will expunge after 3 years) are you back in good graces or not?

journeyman
01-08-2009, 9:40 AM
So if there is a federal loss of rights upon conviction, why would it matter what a state court says?

the one of the ways to restore ones loss of firearms rights is to get an expungement or a pardon(good luck). which many have done in other states the problem is in California a dismissal persuant to 1203.4(basically a straw expungement ) pc does not afford any relief federally they simply do not recognize it




Bill Lockyer, Attorney General
California Department of Justice
FIREARMS DIVISION
Randy Rossi, Director

Subject:
U.S. DOJ ATF DETERMINATION REGARDING THE EFFECT OF
CPC 1203.4 AND 12021(c) (2) FIREARMS RIGHTS RESTORATION
INFORMATION
BULLETIN

No.: 2004-FD-05 For further information contact:
Firearms Division
Date: 09/28/04 (916) 263-4887

TO: ALL CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES

On June 4, 2004, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) was advised by the United States
(U.S.) Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regarding
the effect of “set asides/dismissals” pursuant to California Penal Code (PC) Section 1203.4, for
conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, as defined under Title 18 U.S.C. Section
921(a)(33).
Accordingly, this Information Bulletin is to notify all California agencies of the impact this
determination will have on certain agency employees/clients. Specifically, employees/clients who have
PC Section 273.5 and /or 243(e)(1) convictions that include the use or attempted use of physical force,
or the threatened use of a deadly weapon are affected. While these individuals may have had their
conviction set aside/dismissed pursuant to PC Section 1203.4, concordant with ATF advice, they remain
prohibited from acquiring/possessing firearms under federal law. As you may know, the misdemeanor
crime of domestic violence firearm disability under federal law applies to federal, state, and local
government employees in both their official and private capacities. Since, the firearms prohibition relief
afforded to many peace officers pursuant to PC Section 12021(c)(2) and/or 1203.4 has been nullified
according to the ATF determination, affected officers will no longer be able to acquire/possess firearms.
In the past, many agency employees/clients received a firearms clearance from the California
Department of Justice, Firearms Division, because their past domestic violence misdemeanor
convictions were set aside/dismissed pursuant to PC Section 1203.4. Now, the Department will no
longer be able to clear these individuals to acquire/possess firearms. Additionally, employers of
affected subjects who occupy jobs that require an annual/bi-annual DOJ employment clearance, will
immediately begin receiving prohibited notifications from the Department regarding these individuals
eligibility to acquire/possess firearms.
Should you have any questions regarding this information, please feel free to contact the Firearms
Division at (916) 263-4887.

Sincerely,
RANDY ROSSI, Director
Firearms Division
For BILL LOCKYER
Attorney General



that being said unless the state law is changed hopefully with people v. kim there is no relief at this time except for a pardon from the governor which is from what i understand very hard to get!!! hope this helps

Liberty1
01-08-2009, 11:02 AM
:threadjacked:

A muzzleloader is considered a firearm when it is loaded.

Loaded in CA generally requires a bullet projectile. Blank ammo, in or attached to a firearm in a position from which I can be fired*, does not = loaded

12031 (g) A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of
this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell,
consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or
shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but
not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof
attached to the firearm; except that a muzzle-loader firearm shall be
deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder
charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder.

* People vs Clark

Now the question is: does blank ammunition in possession by a felon = felon in possession of ammunition?

I think we should petition for a bill to force the DOJ to sign up here (well at least make their account known) and answer questions!

CSACANNONEER
01-08-2009, 11:11 AM
Loaded in CA generally requires a bullet projectile. Blank ammo, in or attached to a firearm in a position from which I can be fired*, does not = loaded



* People vs Clark

I know the way the laws are written and, I don't agree with what the DOJ told me about re-enacting. But, I would STRONGLY advise against any prohibited person from hunting with a muzzleloader or any other black powder firearm. Although, it may be legal, even just owning or possessing them could get very expensive and time consuming if the DA presses charges. Ultimately, it's up to the person in question to decide how much of a risk he/she is willing to take.

Liberty1
01-08-2009, 11:15 AM
I know the way the laws are written and, I don't agree with what the DOJ told me about re-enacting. But, I would STRONGLY advise against any prohibited person from hunting with a muzzleloader or any other black powder firearm. Although, it may be legal, even just owning or possessing them could get very expensive and time consuming if the DA presses charges. Ultimately, it's up to the person in question to decide how much of a risk he/she is willing to take.

Doesn't hunting require a projectile which would then make a felon (who may be able to own a BP weapon - I don't know and no comment from this corner) now a felon in possession of ammunition? I think so. I guess if one got close enough the blast could give a phesent or bison a heart attack!

But reenacting?

Just don't carry a bayonet, knife, or espontoon ((g) A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of).

Anyone up for bear spearing? Lewis and Clark carried regulation spontoon or "espontoon" on their expedition with the Corps of Discovery.[2] The weapons came in handy as backup arms when the Corps traveled through brown bear country.[3]

Decoligny
01-08-2009, 11:28 AM
Anyone up for bear spearing?

How about Boar spearing?

http://www.thejump.net/wild-hogs/1-wild-hog-picture-2/705lb-spear-hog.jpg

MP301
01-08-2009, 12:00 PM
try this



http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/articles-memoranda-and-commentary/78-commentary/582-oral-arguments-scheduled-in-rights-restoration-cases.html



Nothing there journeyman....says article gone!

DDT
01-08-2009, 12:04 PM
hate to post on topic but has there been any reporting as to how the oral arguments went?

tetris
01-08-2009, 2:02 PM
this case will decide if restoration of firearms rights can be restored after a misdemeanor conviction this is of special interest to those convicted of MCDV
that loss their right to possess a firearm for life under the lautenberg amendment a lot of LEOs lost their jobs because of this.....what say you?

have you ever heard of the period it is a very useful punctuation device that breaks up your thoughts separates your sentences and generally makes everything you write much more readable I highly recommend you google "period" and learn all about the magic of this wonderful device my eyes will thank you

GuyW
01-08-2009, 2:10 PM
So if there is a federal loss of rights upon conviction, why would it matter what a state court says?

...maybe to "thread" one's way thru the laws...a state's laws may say a muzzleloader is OK to own, and federal law _maybe_ doesn't consider a muzzleloader a firearm (just speculating an example...)

Fate
01-08-2009, 2:12 PM
have you ever heard of the period it is a very useful punctuation device that breaks up your thoughts separates your sentences and generally makes everything you write much more readable I highly recommend you google "period" and learn all about the magic of this wonderful device my eyes will thank you
Hypocrite. :D

grammaton76
01-08-2009, 2:14 PM
hI highly recommend you google "period" and learn all about the magic of this wonderful device my eyes will thank you

I strongly recommend that you do NOT make than an image search... :eek:

journeyman
01-08-2009, 3:54 PM
have you ever heard of the period it is a very useful punctuation device that breaks up your thoughts separates your sentences and generally makes everything you write much more readable I highly recommend you google "period" and learn all about the magic of this wonderful device my eyes will thank you

have something to say a little more useful than that??:(

anthonyca
01-08-2009, 6:50 PM
Has anyone found info on the arguments?

MP301
01-09-2009, 9:22 AM
Thank you Journeyman! Here is what he found on this case, as well as other cases. You can click the link to have this website email you with updates about this case or others.

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.g...doc_no=S153183

DDT
01-09-2009, 9:24 AM
So, no one has any analysis on how the oral arguments went?

415
01-09-2009, 4:52 PM
Can anyone here translate Legalese?

Legalese:

"People v. Kim (Hyung), S153183
#07-317 People v. Kim (Hyung), S153183. (H029324; 150 Cal.App.4th 1158; Superior Court of Monterey County; SM970463.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed orders in a criminal proceeding. This case includes the following issues: (1) Is a person who petitions for a writ of habeas corpus “restrained of his liberty” within the meaning of Penal Code section 1473,
subdivision (a), when he is in the custody of federal immigration officials solely because of a California conviction on which the sentence has fully expired? (2) Is the writ of error coram nobis available to challenge a California conviction on which the sentence has fully expired if the conviction is presently the basis of federal immigration proceedings and the petitioner alleges that trial counsel failed to properly advise him of the immigration consequences of the conviction and that he did not in fact know what those consequences would be? (3) Did the trial court have the power to grant petitioner’s nonstatutory motion to vacate judgment for ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to properly advise him of the immigration consequences of the conviction?"

anthonyca
01-09-2009, 4:56 PM
Can anyone here translate Legalese?

Legalese:

"People v. Kim (Hyung), S153183
#07-317 People v. Kim (Hyung), S153183. (H029324; 150 Cal.App.4th 1158; Superior Court of Monterey County; SM970463.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed orders in a criminal proceeding. This case includes the following issues: (1) Is a person who petitions for a writ of habeas corpus “restrained of his liberty” within the meaning of Penal Code section 1473,
subdivision (a), when he is in the custody of federal immigration officials solely because of a California conviction on which the sentence has fully expired? (2) Is the writ of error coram nobis available to challenge a California conviction on which the sentence has fully expired if the conviction is presently the basis of federal immigration proceedings and the petitioner alleges that trial counsel failed to properly advise him of the immigration consequences of the conviction and that he did not in fact know what those consequences would be? (3) Did the trial court have the power to grant petitioner’s nonstatutory motion to vacate judgment for ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to properly advise him of the immigration consequences of the conviction?"

#3 is of importance to many people who are banned by the Lautenberg ammendment as many would have never pleaded guilty to a BS charge if they know the consequences. They should have been told or have a new trial.

#2 sorry

415
01-09-2009, 5:05 PM
Yes!!!!