PDA

View Full Version : I'm PROHIBITED from owning a gun help !!


Bluemax
05-15-2010, 12:20 PM
I pleaded guilty to domestic violence back in may 1998 because my lawyer said just couseling and a 10 year gun ban or pay him 10k more and we will go to trial and your wife will lie and youll lose.

First of all I wanted a trial because my wife attacked me and was arrested also.She feared prosecution and asked my son to lie to the police, by the way the police never talked to me.She also threatened to divorce me if I took it to trial,I divorced her anyway.


Faced with prosecustion alone and didnt have 10k more I plea bargained. Now the 10 years is up and I am banned for life,even my old attorney said its 10 years but obviously doesnt know the law. I was a competitive shooter all my life until then, Help !!!!!!

Quemtimebo
05-15-2010, 12:23 PM
Not much to be done, from what I understand. :shrug: Assuming you didn't actually do something to your wife, you may want to find another attorney and see what can be done with the charges. If you did, well... sorry.

Window_Seat
05-15-2010, 12:36 PM
And people wonder why I don't get married/relationship.:TFH:

The best thing to do would be to talk with an expungement lawyer here in CA.

Erik.

gregorylucas
05-15-2010, 12:36 PM
I know someone else who is going through a similar situation.

The short answer is that you are probably not going to get your rights back.

The long of it is if you get a VERY expensive lawyer you may be able to get the sentence commuted over time but it is going to cost ALOT of money and footwork on your part. The man I knew who was going through this has requested clemency from the governor-but this is his last stop and it doesn't look good.

-Greg

MP301
05-15-2010, 12:58 PM
I hate this screw job you and others got. You know, if you would have had a DV Felony, you could get your rights back after expungement. Because of the way the "Lautenberg Amendment" is and how it is written, if you live in a state (like CA) that never purges your record even after expungement..... Youarr screwed. When the Feds run your record and see a Misdemeanor DV, they Sony care if it has been expunged.

What's more, if you were covicted many years before the law was enacted, you would still be screwed because it is retro.

Your only hope is for the law to get changed but since most people are ignorant as to how easy it is to get a misd. Dv and even if you were guilty of something that didn't result in serious injury, it is still way excessive punishment.

IIRC, someone even tried to get their conviction reversed by reason of poor legal representation (attorney told them the same thing and didn't know the law). I don't think he had any luck but I don't think it went to the supreme Court and don't remember the details. Good luck.

motorhead
05-15-2010, 1:12 PM
perhaps some new avenues to challenge lautenberg will open up with incorporation.

Gray Peterson
05-15-2010, 1:14 PM
perhaps some new avenues to challenge lautenberg will open up with incorporation.

Lautenberg is federal.

Mstrty
05-15-2010, 2:45 PM
Lautenberg is federal.
exactly. challenge Federal.

Cali-Shooter
05-15-2010, 10:45 PM
Very sorry to hear about your predicament. I have some ideas off the top of my head (pardon me if they are too redonkulous)

-Keep looking for an attorney that can find a way to make legally owning guns a possibility for you (might take a long time or might not happen at all)

-Buy air rifles for your shooting needs, rely on tasers for self defense

-Take up archery

-Move to the Philippines or to Switzerland

Dr Rockso
05-15-2010, 10:50 PM
exactly. challenge Federal.

You don't need incorporation for that. Due to FUD factor, though, I bet this is a ways off...can you imagine those media reports? "In the news today the NRA is trying to put guns into the hands of convicted wife-beaters."

todd2968
05-15-2010, 11:02 PM
When I was a recruiter I had a guy want in the Navy and he told me he and his wife got into a fight and all charges were dropped. I pulled the police report, he beat her pushed her through a plate glass window, took the curtain rod off the holder , and was beating her with it when the police arrived. She dropped all charges.
Of course I'm not saying that is you, but you did admit to it and get a conviction.

Philthy
05-16-2010, 12:56 AM
Go after your old lawyer for malpractice, use any money award to pay the above mentioned expensive lawyer to get it expunged.

gotgunz
05-16-2010, 3:49 AM
851.8pc can be your friend.

CDFingers
05-16-2010, 4:11 AM
Take up archery. It will improve your hand gun accuracy for when you're finally able to own guns again.

CDFingers

ChuckBooty
05-16-2010, 5:31 AM
I don't care how much it costs or what the possible ramifications could be, I would NEVER admit to something (ANYTHING) that I did not do.

damon1272
05-16-2010, 6:25 AM
Just a thought but I thought congress was not to enact ex post facto laws and that this law could be challenged on those grounds.

tankarian
05-16-2010, 7:35 AM
The only way is to get the case expunged AND a pardon from either the CA Governor or the President of the US.
Good luck, your ex pretty much screwed you for life. As one of the previous posters said, take up archery.

CSACANNONEER
05-16-2010, 7:49 AM
That's the price you have to pay for believing your lier (or, is that spelled lawyer?) You do have the option of getting a competent attorney and trying to get your 2A rights back. In some cases, it can be done.

NiteQwill
05-16-2010, 8:12 AM
You're screwed, sorry.

bsg
05-16-2010, 10:49 AM
anytime you become involved romantically with a person of volatile nature, you are taking very large risks that can include and extend past your gun rights. if you listen to the news or believe in "Murphy's Law" you will not even venture a rebuttal to that.

-Brady

Meplat
05-16-2010, 3:12 PM
I don't care how much it costs or what the possible ramifications could be, I would NEVER admit to something (ANYTHING) that I did not do.

How about "No Contest"?

Hoop
05-16-2010, 3:19 PM
I think he can have blackpowder stuff too.

I don't care how much it costs or what the possible ramifications could be, I would NEVER admit to something (ANYTHING) that I did not do.

Easy to say when your *** isn't on the line.

KylaGWolf
05-16-2010, 3:32 PM
No contest is the same as pleading guilty. Just avoids you going to actual trial. If it was something I did not do NO WAY IN HELL would I plead out.

hollabillz
05-16-2010, 4:53 PM
Easy to say when your *** isn't on the line.

:thumbsup:

John Sukey
05-16-2010, 5:07 PM
You had an IDIOT for a lawyer:rolleyes:

reardensteel
05-16-2010, 5:58 PM
I don't care how much it costs or what the possible ramifications could be, I would NEVER admit to something (ANYTHING) that I did not do.

Yup. Admit to nothing, even if you are guilty. Even better, say nothing, let your lawyer do the talking.

Westerner
05-16-2010, 8:00 PM
Bluemax,The outcome of Skoien vs US might help people with past MDVC get their gun rights back. Not to mention the ruling on the Mcdonald case.

Bill Carson
05-16-2010, 8:23 PM
I have two friends that plead guilty to DV because otherwise blah blah blah but they didn't do it. yeah right. i do not believe either one of them

Theseus
05-16-2010, 8:37 PM
I think he can have blackpowder stuff too.



Easy to say when your *** isn't on the line.

It is actually very easy to do, harder to live with the decision.

If I had simply accepted my situation and moved on I would not be fighting to keep my wife and I would likely not be suffering financially as I am.

What could the other outcome have been? Instead of fighting to keep my wife I would have no wife because she wouldn't have respected me, I would have some more money, but probably not much more.

So was the decision easy? Perhaps not as easy as choosing a pair of shoes, but not difficult.

Noah3683
05-16-2010, 8:47 PM
There are certain women that will just push every F'ing button a man has. I never have, nor now will I ever hit a woman. I have the perfect wife for me, but my ex certainly made me entertain the thought a few times. Sorry to say, but she should be punched in the mouth every morning just for being alive. I have never seen anyone with such a big mouth, or cause so many damn problems with anyone under the sun. On that note, I don't see many people pleading guilty on such a charge if they weren't. Even if she was arrested too, and was one of those extremely rare girls that needed an arse beating. If you hit, or pushed back even in self defense, you are guilty brother. It truly sucks, but that is the way laws work regarding DV

duldej
05-16-2010, 8:48 PM
try all the legal avenues that are available for now such as 851.8 (pc) and 1203.4 (pc), and then take a breather because if it can be done, a) it won't happen overnight, and b) whomever you're appealing to will need to see that you're doing your best but that the law is not good enough the way it is and that i sincerely and earnestly need your help.
screw lawyers, i think, unless you file a lawsuit. you probably can petition most of these problems yourself. maybe hang-out in the law library 'til you're confident about your cas(es).
take for instance 1203.4 (pc).
you file, it gets rejected and then you have to petition even that by way of the clerk and maybe a second judge when you thought it was a done deal.
you never know 'til you try.
what if it turns-out you were the very first guy to challenge something like this and the da doesn't have any particular problems with it, the judge agrees with you and you get what you want.
filing a petition is cooler than resigning yourself to life's a b*tch or when will the senate turn republican again, etc.

Solidmch
05-16-2010, 9:01 PM
sorry, but if the original charge is a domestic violence and even if you plead to a 415pc (Distirbing the peace) you shall be banned for life from gun ownership!


Thank Difi for that!

ChuckBooty
05-17-2010, 7:01 AM
How about "No Contest"?

Nope. "No Contest" is the same as "Guilty". The only difference is that a "No Contest" can't be presented as evidence in the case that you are also sued in Civil Court.




Easy to say when your *** isn't on the line.

I see what you're saying. But something as serious as Domestic Violence is a different story. No matter WHAT "really happened" all that matters is that, you're now an admited wife beater.

It is actually very easy to do, harder to live with the decision.

If I had simply accepted my situation and moved on I would not be fighting to keep my wife and I would likely not be suffering financially as I am.

What could the other outcome have been? Instead of fighting to keep my wife I would have no wife because she wouldn't have respected me, I would have some more money, but probably not much more.

So was the decision easy? Perhaps not as easy as choosing a pair of shoes, but not difficult.

This

ChuckBooty
05-17-2010, 7:03 AM
That being said though...I must admit that if I ever WERE on the recieving end of a bad rap and banned from firearm ownership, I would STILL find a way to defend myself. I may not have the latest, sweetest AR build, but I'd be able to defend myself.

foxtrotuniformlima
05-17-2010, 7:14 AM
So is this a federal thing or a California thing ? Does he face the same restrictions in say Arizona ?

JDoe
05-17-2010, 7:40 AM
People plead down or plead guilty to crimes they don't commit all the time. Probably every day. I'm not here to explain why, only to point out that fact.

The innocence project doesn't have the resources to help every person wrongly convicted so they focus there efforts on the wrongly convicted who are subject to the harshest penalties. There are however enough examples of innocent people pleading guilty to crimes they did not commit to demonstrate that it is not uncommon for an innocent person to plead guilty.

When the Innocent Plead Guilty (http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/1801.php)

False confessions and admissions are a major cause of injustice in the United States, involved in about 25% of the wrongful convictions overturned by DNA testing. Among the many defendants who gave false confessions or admissions to crimes they didn’t commit, 17 pled guilty — usually seeking to avoid the potential for a long sentence (or a death sentence) for a crime they didn’t commit. The 19 individuals listed below pled guilty to crimes they didn’t commit and served a combined total of more than 100 years in prison before they were exonerated:... [more] (http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/1801.php)

Westerner
05-17-2010, 7:49 AM
Come to think of it, a writ of error coram nobis might work.

1919_4_ME
05-17-2010, 7:53 AM
Contact this place:
www.criminalhistorycleaners.com

They specialize is getting your records cleaned up. Restoration of GunRights $199.

Bluemax
05-17-2010, 10:01 AM
For all interested she head butted me in the mouth so I locked her out of the house. Now we know she has what they call borderline personality disorder,She lied because she feared she would be proscecuted by the police for child neglect .I called child protective services who ruled for me but because of OJ they dont care. So be careful. I divorced her which pissed her off and I won custody of my children . FYI, I do shoot archery too,I own a Bowtech guardian bow but I am more pissed that the state will not honor their plea bargain that I have in writing that was done a full year and a half after the Latenburg amendment. For all the stupid responses to my post we need to be a team here because its just a matter of time that the next hammer will fall on us all,now that health care and the economy are becoming past issues they will be back on track banning guns. its not getting any better,right?

BigBamBoo
05-17-2010, 5:44 PM
...........

beanok
05-18-2010, 11:38 AM
Has anyone saying "your screwed" actually gone through this, or are you just speaking from what you have read? I'm not trying to be a d***, but am serious. Long story short for me, in 1999 my ex-wife and I had mutual DV charges, hers months before mine. My conviction was for misdemeanor DV in 12/1999. I have done a ton of reading on the CA DOJ site, and the ATF site, read penal codes, as well as countless internet threads, and had an attorney friend of mine (not a firearm atty, but is a shooter, and been an attorney for 30 years)...

It appears that: CA has a 10 year ban for MDV, Federal has lifetime ban. ATF web site states though that if you have your MDV charges expunged, you are not considered convicted of that crime. (refer to last question on the page here: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/misdemeanor-domestic-violence.html#restored-rights ) For what its worth, my attorney friend also believes this is the process to restore firearms rights. So since it has been over 10 years since my conviction, not been in trouble since, and my records have been expunged, seems I should be able to have my firearms rights restored.

So, it seems you should be able to get your record expunged and then once the court updates the DOJ with records, you should then have your firearms rights restored, and that the Federal ban is only still in place if you do not get an expungement.

I am in this process right now, did it all myself, got my record expunged (for free!-court cost fee waiver), and the court sent my updated record to DOJ about 5-6 weeks ago. I will be submitting another PFEC to DOJ in a few weeks (giving them time to actually update their records), and hope to have an approval. I'll update here and let you all know. I have done hours and hours of research on this, and think it IS possible... I'll let you know when I do....

Hope everything work for you.Please let us know what happen....thx

bruss01
05-18-2010, 12:17 PM
Go out and get blued and tatoo'd. You still won't have guns but you will have a complete set to savor your regrets.

I'm very sorry for what happened to you, but I don't believe there is any legal remedy you will find effective. Talk to good lawyers, maybe they will find a way, but my money says no.

ETA - if the whole expungement process works I will be delighted but surprised. You may be able to fool the DROS system into selling you a gun but that does not mean that if you run into the feds at a later date and have a gun that you will not be charged with a gun possession felony. Good luck all and do let us know how it goes.

Seesm
05-18-2010, 12:50 PM
I had a deal happen to me yrs ago and I ALMOST pleaded no contest on a bogus deal... Glad I did not now... Hope your able to make something happen for your good if you did not do it...

RoyGilds
05-18-2010, 8:14 PM
I pleaded guilty to domestic violence back in may 1998 because my lawyer said just couseling and a 10 year gun ban or pay him 10k more and we will go to trial and your wife will lie and youll lose.

First of all I wanted a trial because my wife attacked me and was arrested also.She feared prosecution and asked my son to lie to the police, by the way the police never talked to me.She also threatened to divorce me if I took it to trial,I divorced her anyway.


Faced with prosecustion alone and didnt have 10k more I plea bargained. Now the 10 years is up and I am banned for life,even my old attorney said its 10 years but obviously doesnt know the law. I was a competitive shooter all my life until then, Help !!!!!!

You come onto this site asking a bunch of 18 year old lawyers what to do.
What the heck are you smoking?:mad:

Full Clip
05-18-2010, 8:34 PM
Er, and you don't have the terms of your punishment -- like the "10 years" bit -- in writing from the court?

anthonyca
05-18-2010, 8:38 PM
By what means are you expunging your conviction? 1203.4? If so, I am
sorry to say that batfe does not recognize that process since California will still let the original charge be used as a prior conviction. Now to add to the confusion, they used to recognize cali expungement.

The conviction would need to be set aside.(not easy) People vs Kim in the Cali SC pretty much screwed most people out of the writ of error coram. There was just a SCOTUS ruling padilla vs Kentucky regaurding immigration and a failure of council to inform the defendant that he would be deported, this may allow a case such as yours to move forward.

The best way to approach this would be to find a clean plaintiff(dispite the dv) and form a coalition of people who hate this law to fund him. I even know of some one who has it in writing, from his attorney, that his plea would not affect his military career. She then went on to say, in a letter dated AFTER she entered his plea, that it occurred to her that he could not own a gun, but he could petition the court for his rights back, which was false. He was 19 at the time and in the Army reserve.

Has anyone saying "your screwed" actually gone through this, or are you just speaking from what you have read? I'm not trying to be a d***, but am serious. Long story short for me, in 1999 my ex-wife and I had mutual DV charges, hers months before mine. My conviction was for misdemeanor DV in 12/1999. I have done a ton of reading on the CA DOJ site, and the ATF site, read penal codes, as well as countless internet threads, and had an attorney friend of mine (not a firearm atty, but is a shooter, and been an attorney for 30 years)...

It appears that: CA has a 10 year ban for MDV, Federal has lifetime ban. ATF web site states though that if you have your MDV charges expunged, you are not considered convicted of that crime. (refer to last question on the page here: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/misdemeanor-domestic-violence.html#restored-rights ) For what its worth, my attorney friend also believes this is the process to restore firearms rights. So since it has been over 10 years since my conviction, not been in trouble since, and my records have been expunged, seems I should be able to have my firearms rights restored.

So, it seems you should be able to get your record expunged and then once the court updates the DOJ with records, you should then have your firearms rights restored, and that the Federal ban is only still in place if you do not get an expungement.

I am in this process right now, did it all myself, got my record expunged (for free!-court cost fee waiver), and the court sent my updated record to DOJ about 5-6 weeks ago. I will be submitting another PFEC to DOJ in a few weeks (giving them time to actually update their records), and hope to have an approval. I'll update here and let you all know. I have done hours and hours of research on this, and think it IS possible... I'll let you know when I do....

Theseus
05-18-2010, 10:06 PM
I wonder. . . if it would be possible, and even more sympathetic if the family of a person that was murdered after being denied a firearm because of a DV conviction. . . . I am sure it is far more complicated than that, btu who knows. What I know at this point is that I am only prohibited in CA for 10 years because of my situation, and if it became a lifetime Fed prohibition I would fight it tooth, nail, arm and leg.

anthonyca
05-18-2010, 10:23 PM
I wonder. . . if it would be possible, and even more sympathetic if the family of a person that was murdered after being denied a firearm because of a DV conviction. . . . I am sure it is far more complicated than that, btu who knows. What I know at this point is that I am only prohibited in CA for 10 years because of my situation, and if it became a lifetime Fed prohibition I would fight it tooth, nail, arm and leg.

I believe the way the Feds will prohibit more people in the future will be things like the lautenberg ammendment. Look at the SCOTUS ruling yesterday, the fed gov can hold sex offenders indefenetly, for a state conviction, after they serve their sentence. Does anyone think this will stop at sex offenders?

Why wouldn't congress pass a law that states, anyone who has commited a state offense which resulted in a loss of gun rights, is herby prohibited for life from ever touching a gun. It's been working with lautenberg. Why not for your case? I believe this is the new way of gun bans. They won't get everyone, but they will get many. The crimes will just become less and less serious until SCOTUS stops them.

Big E
05-19-2010, 9:20 AM
Come to think of it, a writ of error coram nobis might work.

I can only speak for specifics on the this thread, but I don't think the writ of error coram nobis will work becuase he would have to prove the court (judge) was not aware of something. Unfortunately, becuase he pleaded out I don't think it flys. This is where the law experts come in.

However, I think otis_bartleh, is on the right path. When I first read your post something sounded fishy and I was thinking that what your lawyer told you at the time (1998) had some truth to it. SO DON'T GIVE UP!!! Follow-up on what "Otis" said and get back to us (Okay, I just thought of Animal House:o).

GrayWolf09
05-19-2010, 5:12 PM
Yes, it was expunged per 1203.4. We'll see what happens, according to what I have obtained from the ATF, PC's and the DOJ, this should be the correct process, but we'll see. I can answer "No, I have not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime" in most cases, DROS being one of them, and ATF should clear it; however, I can not answer that way, and as you stated, the expungement would not work if I were to apply for a LE job, military, or government position. I would need to answer "Yes", as if the expungement did not happen, and if the expungement didn't happen, I can't carry.

In regards to your friend (that situation sucks!), as I mentioned above, it is stated the expungement would not apply in the case of military. In his case, since he has dated letters from his attorney advising him incorrectly leading him to enter a plea and a dated letter after the plea admitting her mistake, I would try to move for mis-representation, and have his case re-heard.

For me, even though I was convicted, I acted in self defense (my ex was crazy and violent), and my ex got on the stand on my behalf (we weren't getting along, but she was telling the truth), and even the probation department recommended no jail time in my case. Not going into more details though, no one cares, but its not like I'm some crazy criminal trying to loophole the system into getting a gun, please know that. I'm just someone who has messed up in the past like so many of us have, in one form or another. Have not been in trouble before or after that, and am trying to put that in the past and get my rights back. I usually expect the worst and hope for the best.

Edit: This sucks! hehe, If I can't laugh about it, it'll drive me nuts...

Good luck to you. Thank you for all the work you have done and for fighting for gun rights on our behalf.

Westerner
05-19-2010, 6:27 PM
Move to Montana, and after being a residence.Buy Montana made firearms. You will never have to worry about Frank Lautenberg's stupid misdemeanor federal DV gun law.

dad
05-19-2010, 10:07 PM
sorry, but if the original charge is a domestic violence and even if you plead to a 415pc (Distirbing the peace) you shall be banned for life from gun ownership!


Thank Difi for that!

A 415 will not cost some one their gun rights!

anthonyca
05-20-2010, 12:21 AM
A 415 will not cost some one their gun rights!
The following is a direct quote from the ATF.
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/mcdvbrochure.htm
The universe of offenses that could constitute MCDVs includes all misdemeanor offenses that contain either the use of physical force, the attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon as an element, so long as the offense is committed against a person with whom the defendant had a qualifying relationship. As a result, offenses that could constitute MCDVs oftentimes encompass such offenses as generic assault and disorderly conduct.

ATF was ruling that a 415, disturbing the peace, would ban you for life under the federal lautenberg amendment since most disturbing the peace charges are very broad, and include things like fighting in public acting"boisterous", and such. There was a case out of Hawaii that ruled that a disturbing the peace conviction was too broad, since it also includes acts that do not meet the lautenberg amendment.

I am on my phone and too lazy to look, but I think the reason the fed court ruled that disturbing the peace conviction did not meet the lautenberg definition was because there was no court record of the guy actions. If there were still court records available stating he met the stipulations of lautenberg he would be in federal prison as a felon, for a misdemeanor state conviction and possesing a gun or ammo. The lautenberg amendment, federal lifetime ban, does not care what the charge is called, if the stipulations of the law are met, you are banned for life. IE you do not have to be charged with domestic violence. Even if your state has no domestic violence charge, or no such charge existed 50 years ago when you plead to some charge by a different name, you can be banned for life. http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=United_States_v._Hayes

I posted the Hayes SCOTUS case to show that what the state calls the charge has no bearing on the federal ban, the actions of the person charged and the relationship are what matter.

I belive there may be a circuit split on this also. People have been convicted of 415 or other disorderly conduct charges and not lost any firearms rights from the state, but are banned for life from the Feds.

maxwellca21
05-20-2010, 12:25 AM
forget firearms...start practicing bow and arrow.

bruss01
05-20-2010, 9:28 AM
I am not attempting a method of fooling the DROS system. I am attempting to restore my 2A rights as per all CA PC's and per ATF's own FAQ section. I wouldn't try and fool the system, I know that would only come back to bite one on the a**...

Honestly, even though I know how to decipher the legal jargon (I'm a paralegal), and had an attorney help me out, I am still expecting some kind of problem, even though there shouldn't be. Then again, I didn't expect my expungement to only take 3-4 weeks from beginning to end to be filed and granted, for free on top of it all, in L.A. County too! I will definitely update once I get some results...

No, I didn't mean you were intentionally trying to "fool" anyone, I meant that in meaning all good intentions, acting on the advice of people who "know" the legal system, you go through steps that indeed do allow you to purchase a firearm, then find out later to your dismay that the advice you were given was only PARTLY right and you end up getting in trouble despite your pure intentions. The OP here was given bad advice by someone who should have known better, and I just don't want anyone to find themselves in a similarly compromised situation due to getting bad or incomplete advice. Good luck with your expungement and I hope to hear how it all pans out.

winnre
05-20-2010, 10:38 AM
The one part I do not like is that when the law was decided it went back in time and took rights away form plenty of folks. What's to say tomorrow they will not say "Oh if you got a ticket for reckless driving that means no guns" and then all of a sudden one of us finds ourselves on that side of the law? It was not grandfathered, saying everyone after this date cannot own guns. This reachback can hurt.

KylaGWolf
05-20-2010, 11:03 PM
Nope. "No Contest" is the same as "Guilty". The only difference is that a "No Contest" can't be presented as evidence in the case that you are also sued in Civil Court.



I see what you're saying. But something as serious as Domestic Violence is a different story. No matter WHAT "really happened" all that matters is that, you're now an admited wife beater.



This

Actually yes a no contest plea can be used in a civil case happens all the time.

415
05-21-2010, 7:54 PM
By what means are you expunging your conviction? 1203.4? If so, I am
sorry to say that batfe does not recognize that process since California will still let the original charge be used as a prior conviction. Now to add to the confusion, they used to recognize cali expungement.

Yep...



Quote:
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

Otis - Please keep us updated on your progress... success or otherwise.

I'm in the same boat as you:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=143504&highlight=ca+doj+mcdv

Hopefully, we may get a victory via US vs. Skoien...

winnre
05-25-2010, 4:22 PM
...And for the record, I am NOT in favor of putting firearms in the hands of abusers, of which I am not, but this situation is ridiculous, especially since violent felons can go buy a gun....


Felony wobblers can be reduced to allow firearms ownership, yet this misdemeanor cannot. What does it take for a DV conviction? One drunk rage? Or does there have to be a pattern? Talk about no slack!

Mendo223
05-25-2010, 4:35 PM
i know someone who got a felony DV. While at a party his girlfriend started hitting him. It then escalated to where SHE punched him once, he told her to stop. she punched him again in the face, he told her to stop or he was gonna put hands on her. She punched him a third time and he cold clocked her in front of a bunch of people. He then beat up a guy (hero) who tried to step in.

I know it sounds bad, but the crazy women hit him three times first (verified)...

They both got DV charges and now he cant own a gun legally, but he lives in a large extended family so it was easy for someone else to purchase a gun..

Laws dont do anything but restrict people and cause them to break more laws.

GrayWolf09
05-26-2010, 3:32 PM
Doesn't take much, if you're a guy. My ex, who also had charges on her months before me for DV for beating the crap out of me (witness saw her and called the cops), had her charges dropped by the DA, after a proven history of violence and criminal activity. Me, finally snapped while she was hitting me, pushed her into a wall to stop getting hit, and there went my 2A rights.... DA came after me, not her (for what would be the 3rd time), even though I had no record at all prior to that, and my ex admitted to it all...

My family kept asking why I put up with it when I would come around with black eyes all the time, guess I should have listened.

My 2 cents for all guys out there: f*** the dumbsh**, if she's a *****, walk. Its not worth being discriminated against by the U.S. Government for the rest fo your life....

This ^ If you are a guy, the deck is stacked against you. A friend of mine's wife attacked him with an iron. Guess who got charged. If your significant other gets violent run don't walk away.

dad
05-29-2010, 11:33 AM
What about this? Do you have a good chance of getting your guns back?

(B) (i) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter, unless—
(I) the person was represented by counsel in the case, or knowingly and intelligently
waived the right to counsel in the case; and
(II) in the case of a prosecution for an offense described in this paragraph for which a
person was entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either
(aa) the case was tried by a jury, or
(bb) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case
tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise.

shellyzsweet
05-29-2010, 12:14 PM
Man, nothing pisses me off quite like a women claiming something that never happened and getting the guy in trouble cause she wants to get even.

I'm not saying victims of violence and rape should be questioned, but rather than slap the cuffs on the man and charge him, they need to gather evidence and document it cause a DV conviction can ruin your life! Just like the OP's life is ruined cause of his plea bargin. I have seen enough instances where the female's story keeps changing and lies keep coming out of her mouth cause she doesn't like the guy. They have NO IDEA the amount of damage they can do by claiming DV (or they do and are evil creatures):mad::mad::mad:

To the OP: I'm sorry for what happened, good luck on your course of action. If her claims were unjust and lies I offer this: as a women I am truly sorry for what she did to you and am ashamed to be the same sex as her.:mad:

OO and to all the guys...FYI, date a girl with guns! Its called mutually assured destruction!! :43:

Hunt
05-29-2010, 3:42 PM
I pleaded guilty to domestic violence back in may 1998 because my lawyer said just couseling and a 10 year gun ban or pay him 10k more and we will go to trial and your wife will lie and youll lose.

First of all I wanted a trial because my wife attacked me and was arrested also.She feared prosecution and asked my son to lie to the police, by the way the police never talked to me.She also threatened to divorce me if I took it to trial,I divorced her anyway.


Faced with prosecustion alone and didnt have 10k more I plea bargained. Now the 10 years is up and I am banned for life,even my old attorney said its 10 years but obviously doesnt know the law. I was a competitive shooter all my life until then, Help !!!!!!

doesn't sound like a fair and just system to me, if not then what is it? A tyranny?

Hunt
05-29-2010, 3:45 PM
What about this? Do you have a good chance of getting your guns back?

(B) (i) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter, unless—
(I) the person was represented by counsel in the case, or knowingly and intelligently
waived the right to counsel in the case; and
(II) in the case of a prosecution for an offense described in this paragraph for which a
person was entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either
(aa) the case was tried by a jury, or
(bb) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case
tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise.

this doesn't make sense there is a massive loophole here!
just refuse to sign away any rights and request to represent yourself

Hunt
05-29-2010, 3:49 PM
Felony wobblers can be reduced to allow firearms ownership, yet this misdemeanor cannot. What does it take for a DV conviction? One drunk rage? Or does there have to be a pattern? Talk about no slack!

this is the result of greedy politicians pandering to the National Organization for Women.

winnre
05-29-2010, 9:22 PM
this is the result of greedy politicians pandering to the National Organization for Women.

Based on that logic, women should not be able to get firearms until after menopause! :D:D:D

Interloper
05-29-2010, 10:41 PM
Well, that's what you get for beating your wife.

GW
05-29-2010, 11:24 PM
Just a thought but I thought congress was not to enact ex post facto laws and that this law could be challenged on those grounds.

What he said!

Isn't the whole Lautenberg amandment unconstitutional based on the fact that it scooped up people who copped pleas /"Just wanted to put it behind me" etc
Well before the amendment passed and on top of that wasn't it modified later to exclude LEO's .
This whole thing reeks of unconstitutionality so what am I missing here that allows it to stay on the books?:confused::confused::confused:

juicemansam
05-30-2010, 3:38 AM
Apply for a new tracking number?

dad
05-30-2010, 9:12 AM
Well, that's what you get for beating your wife.
Obviously you know "nothing" about "Domestic Violence" ! I strongly suggest you go to the Wikipedia and read it "very-very carefully"!


What he said!

Isn't the whole Lautenberg amandment unconstitutional based on the fact that it scooped up people who copped pleas /"Just wanted to put it behind me" etc
Well before the amendment passed and on top of that wasn't it modified later to exclude LEO's .
This whole thing reeks of unconstitutionality so what am I missing here that allows it to stay on the books?:confused::confused::confused:

People who had DV convictions "before" the Lautenberg law was signed, were also included in the gun ban. I believe this is the only law ever to do that!
California law-Was a 10 year ban, then after the 10 years you got your gun rights back! But federal law(Lautenberg) over rules the California law.
LEO's are included with every body else!

Westerner
05-30-2010, 10:18 AM
Well, that's what you get for beating your wife.

You sound like one of those clueless, Brady Campaign idiots.

Interloper
05-30-2010, 11:04 AM
Not at all. He smacked his wife around and his lawyer probably gave him the best advice at the time. I don't think this particular law is fair but them's the breaks.

ke6guj
05-30-2010, 4:26 PM
What he said!

Isn't the whole Lautenberg amandment unconstitutional based on the fact that it scooped up people who copped pleas /"Just wanted to put it behind me" etc
Well before the amendment passed and on top of that wasn't it modified later to exclude LEO's .
This whole thing reeks of unconstitutionality so what am I missing here that allows it to stay on the books?:confused::confused::confused:I think you are thinking about Ex Post Facto law, but the way they try to claim it is constitutional is that they aren't punishing you for firearms possesion that occured before the lautenberg law, which would be a retroactive crime, but that if you possess the firearm now, that it is a crime, which is a current and on-going crime.

Nodaedul
05-30-2010, 8:15 PM
DV is a terrible bull $#^* charge. I too went into the frying pan on a DV charge after a drunk jealous girlfriend got violent. $6k bail and lawyer fees, multiple wittnesses and my makeshift cell phone videos of subsequent drunken attacks by her got the case dropped.

All I can say is if a girl ever starts attacking grab your cell phone and start recording. If you are really innocent then it will save you.

winnre
05-31-2010, 10:36 AM
So let me see if I have this right:

Spouse come at you with iron/frying pan/etc.
You are in fear.
You punch her in the nose in self defense.
She goes down.
You cannot own a gun.

Or...

Spouse come at you with iron/frying pan/etc.
You are in fear.
You shoot her dead in self defense.
She goes down.
You can own a gun.

anthonyca
05-31-2010, 3:06 PM
So let me see if I have this right:

Spouse come at you with iron/frying pan/etc.
You are in fear.
You punch her in the nose in self defense.
She goes down.
You cannot own a gun.

Or...

Spouse come at you with iron/frying pan/etc.
You are in fear.
You shoot her dead in self defense.
She goes down.
You can own a gun.

That probably stems from the perceived consequences of the two scenarios you listed. If accused of murdering one's spouse, most would fight hard and not take the first offer from the DA. Many people would just plead out a misdemeanor DV thinking it was not as serious as it is.

Here is a case I witnessed with my own eyes.

A friend is told by a guy he grew up with that he saw his GF drunk with a known slut and a group of rowdy guys. The other girl, the slut, was dating the guy who told my friend that he saw his gf with that group. He broke it off with her and she became very jealous of my friends relationship.

Here is the part I saw.

My friends GF had many people over for a surprise birthday party. We were all told that my buddy wasn't there because he was in the Army reserve and was at drill.

Well, he comes over and finds her drinking with some of his friends and some people he doesn't know. He flashes with rage and looks as if he is going to beat her to death, but does not touch her or say anything for a few seconds.

He then tells her to come outside. He takes her hand and walks her outside. She won't look him in the eye because she knows what she did was wrong. He puts his hands on her shoulders and calls her a filthy whore.

He did not punch, slap, choke, shake, pull her hand violently, or threaten her.
He then walked away with her following him and her crying for him to listen because it's not what it looks like.

Her "friend" who was trying to sabotage my buddy's relationship because his friend dumped her called the police. The cops come and my friends now ex gf doesn't want to corporate as they keep questioning her. The slut mentioned previously, and the preverbial fat broad who is always in every one's business, precede to tell the cops he beat he crap out of his GF. The GF gives a statement that he touched her but no striking or threats. Cops don't take statements from anyone else and they leave.

I don't see the rest but this is what my friend told me later. There is a knock on his door about an hour later. When he opens the door he sees two cops on the porch and one asks his name, which he affirms that is his name. One cop then puts his hand out and introduces himself and my friend reaches to shake his hand. The cop spins him around and cuffs him while saying, " so, you had a little disagreement tonight"?

They ask what happened and he tells the whole truth(big mistake). Another cop comes out from the side of the house, that cop leaves when he sees my friend cuffed. One cop is very nice and seems like he wants to let him go and the other is a real jerk, very tight cuffs, rude, accusatory ect. He is taken to jail, this is a Friday night.

After his uncle bails him out he gets a lawyer. His lawyer tells she was an assistant DA before going to private practice and he has no defence, as ANY touching is DV. She then puts in writing that if he pleads no contest he can keep his gun rights and it will not affect his Army reserve carreer in which he had just won battalion soldier of the year.

He is banned for life from ever touching a firearm or ammo and his military career is over. This still comes up at work 13 years later because he needs some extensive background checks for work, very extensive 1933 SEC background.

winnre
05-31-2010, 3:42 PM
I was an MP when the law went into effect and I saw MPs transferred to tank battalions, and the like. I never touched my ex when angry, but I'd yell like a drill sergeant. Oh wait, there was the time I pulled her out of the car while she was driving drunk (she wrecked the car too) but one can argue I was saving her life and the lives of others on the road.

Yea, it sucks, considering all the things that one can go to counseling classes for and have it over and done with. Even noted, a 5150 can get a firearm after x number of years of being certified as sane... so maybe instead of DV go 5150 as a plea?

And who is to say more actions in one's past may not add to the list one day?

GW
05-31-2010, 9:11 PM
I think you are thinking about Ex Post Facto law, but the way they try to claim it is constitutional is that they aren't punishing you for firearms possesion that occured before the lautenberg law, which would be a retroactive crime, but that if you possess the firearm now, that it is a crime, which is a current and on-going crime.

Yes I am talking about ex post facto. As I see it, Lautenberg tacks on an extra penalty AFTER the sentencing. That's the part I say is unconstitutional.
Now actual wife beaters can go to hell as far as I care, but MANY people just copped to a plea back before Lautenberg because it was a misdemeanor and they wanted to get past it or didn't want to spend the money or couldn't afford to fight it. How many of these people would have fought their DV beef if they knew that there would a lifetime ban on firearms ownership?

lautenberg needs to be repealed immediately

KI6RYC
05-31-2010, 9:15 PM
[...]

Yea, it sucks, considering all the things that one can go to counseling classes for and have it over and done with. Even noted, a 5150 can get a firearm after x number of years of being certified as sane... so maybe instead of DV go 5150 as a plea?

[...]

Doesn't a 5150 invoke a lifetime federal ban?

winnre
05-31-2010, 9:19 PM
Doesn't a 5150 invoke a lifetime federal ban?

Wasn't there one that was a 5 or 10 year ban?

duldej
06-01-2010, 9:14 PM
according to box (f) in form 4473 it's a bad idea to claim temporary insanity which is what the last few posters suggested because you're disqualified from saying, "no," to box f.

as a matter of fact, 5150 detention(s) means a 5 year statute of prohibiting firearms possession, purchase, etc from the date you were admitted involuntarily to the hospital.
you have the option to fight it at any time in court in that 5 years.
temporary insanity is a lifelong problem.
those are two different things.

norcalsniper
06-02-2010, 1:51 PM
I'm assuming that you may have gotten your answer from DOJ by now but maybe this info can clear things up.

Per the ATF site linked below it says

"Q: Is an individual who has been pardoned, or whose conviction was expunged or set aside, or whose civil rights have been restored, considered convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?
No, as long as the pardon, expungement, or restoration does not expressly provide that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms."

Now the problem is in 1203.4 (a) PC where it says


Dismissal of an accusation or information pursuant to this section
does not permit a person to own, possess, or have in his or her
custody or control any firearm or prevent his or her conviction under
Section 12021.


I know for a fact that your "RAP" sheet will show the conviction and the date of the conviction and then also show the dismissal or "set aside" per 1203.4 which as stated above does NOT give the right to possess firearms back to someone. Having personally talked to DOJ in regards to this information I know this to be their stance. A DROS application from a person with this information on their rap WILL and has gotten denied in the past.

The Misdemeanor crime of domestic violence holds a 10 year ban for the State of California and a lifetime ban federally as you already know. Although DOJ is a state agency and does not prosecute federally they will deny a DROS form based on a federal firearms restriction.

The ONLY way I've ever seen someone get their rights to possess firearms restored in Califonia was by having a judge dismiss a charge per Nunc Pro Tunc. Nunc Pro Tunc means "now for then". In Judicial terms that means that the order is dismissed now and the dismissal date is then (the date it was charged), basically saying it never happened. The Nunc Pro Tunc is usually used in cases of an error of the court. Doing a brief Google search it appears there are other reasons it can be used as well.

Good luck!

Has anyone saying "your screwed" actually gone through this, or are you just speaking from what you have read? I'm not trying to be a d***, but am serious. Long story short for me, in 1999 my ex-wife and I had mutual DV charges, hers months before mine. My conviction was for misdemeanor DV in 12/1999. I have done a ton of reading on the CA DOJ site, and the ATF site, read penal codes, as well as countless internet threads, and had an attorney friend of mine (not a firearm atty, but is a shooter, and been an attorney for 30 years)...

It appears that: CA has a 10 year ban for MDV, Federal has lifetime ban. ATF web site states though that if you have your MDV charges expunged, you are not considered convicted of that crime. (refer to last question on the page here: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/misdemeanor-domestic-violence.html#restored-rights ) For what its worth, my attorney friend also believes this is the process to restore firearms rights. So since it has been over 10 years since my conviction, not been in trouble since, and my records have been expunged, seems I should be able to have my firearms rights restored.

So, it seems you should be able to get your record expunged and then once the court updates the DOJ with records, you should then have your firearms rights restored, and that the Federal ban is only still in place if you do not get an expungement.

I am in this process right now, did it all myself, got my record expunged (for free!-court cost fee waiver), and the court sent my updated record to DOJ about 5-6 weeks ago. I will be submitting another PFEC to DOJ in a few weeks (giving them time to actually update their records), and hope to have an approval. I'll update here and let you all know. I have done hours and hours of research on this, and think it IS possible... I'll let you know when I do....

GuyW
06-02-2010, 3:22 PM
Now the problem is in 1203.4 (a) PC where it says


Dismissal of an accusation or information pursuant to this section
does not permit a person to own, possess, or have in his or her
custody or control any firearm or prevent his or her conviction under
Section 12021.


Not that it will affect anyone getting a dismissal now - but I don't think 1203.4 always included that language.
.

dad
06-02-2010, 3:43 PM
What does PFEC and DROS stand for?

winnre
06-02-2010, 4:06 PM
Not that it will affect anyone getting a dismissal now - but I don't think 1203.4 always included that language.
.

It did in 1984.

ke6guj
06-02-2010, 4:34 PM
What does PFEC and DROS stand for?

PFEC = personal fireams eligibility check
DROS = Dealer record of sale

Midian
06-02-2010, 4:53 PM
What I know at this point is that I am only prohibited in CA for 10 years because of my situation, and if it became a lifetime Fed prohibition I would fight it

Was this the result of your Open Carry incident? Goddamn.

kalguns
06-02-2010, 4:57 PM
Your up s-creek! Should never hit a women no matter what.

grammaton76
06-02-2010, 5:55 PM
I think he can have blackpowder stuff too.

Black powder weapons are regarded as firearms once they're loaded, and would probably violate the terms of the restriction.

paladin4415
06-02-2010, 6:49 PM
Your up s-creek! Should never hit a women no matter what.

I agree with you, but as previously stated, you don't have to "hit". Any physical contact can be deemed a DV incident. A threat with no contact of any kind can be a DV also. It is a very ugly part of our lives now.

diginit
06-02-2010, 7:00 PM
Your up s-creek! Should never hit a women no matter what.
He did not hit her. Read the GD post before shooting off your keyboard if you are going to use that screen name.

Bluemax
06-06-2010, 12:52 PM
I filed my own expungement and that was granted,expungement does not restore your gun rights. Sadly Calif provided me a contract exactly 1 1/2 years after Lutenburg passed that clearly states a ten year ban then I can own again, Calif now is renegging on their agreement. A call to DOJ stated they decided to follow Federal Law. My Lawyer was concerned uop to the point when I paid him then he had one thing in mind and that was plee bargin and pocket the money,I plan on sueing him for malpractice.

bwiese
06-06-2010, 1:36 PM
I filed my own expungement and that was granted,expungement does not restore your gun rights. Sadly Calif provided me a contract exactly 1 1/2 years after Lutenburg passed that clearly states a ten year ban then I can own again, Calif now is renegging on their agreement. A call to DOJ stated they decided to follow Federal Law. My Lawyer was concerned uop to the point when I paid him then he had one thing in mind and that was plee bargin and pocket the money,I plan on sueing him for malpractice.

Dude,

You are WAY unclear on the concept and don't understand separation of Fed and California laws/actions.

Whatever California does/does not/did/did not do is irrelevant.

Even if CA said you could have a gun - regardless of what CA says, FEDERAL LAW BANS YOU FROM HAVING GUNS.

"LAUTENBERG" IS A FEDERAL LAW. PERIOD.

This is very much like the CA Prop 15 potsmokers - even if legal in CA, they're still violating FEDERAL law.

You have no cause for action against any gov't agency, especially the DOJ.

You should in fact thank the DOJ. All the DOJ did was stop you from acquiring guns you couldn't have anyway - so they may well have saved you from Federal time for a Fed violation.

The only person you might remotely have issues with is your attorney, for being poorly informed and steering you the wrong way (and that still may have been correct, I dunno your cirumcstances but you may well not have won in trial anyway.)

Spartan
06-07-2010, 11:29 AM
Dude,

You are WAY unclear on the concept and don't understand separation of Fed and California laws/actions.

Whatever California does/does not/did/did not do is irrelevant.

Even if CA said you could have a gun - regardless of what CA says, FEDERAL LAW BANS YOU FROM HAVING GUNS.

"LAUTENBERG" IS A FEDERAL LAW. PERIOD.



What if the OP moved to the 6th Circuit jurisdiction area? 2003 or 04 Wegrzyn (sp?) v US ruled that Lautenberg did not affect someone that had civil their rights restored.

winnre
06-07-2010, 11:39 AM
It's funny that with Lautenberg the FEDS override the STATE, but with AW laws the STATE overrides the FEDS.

bwiese
06-07-2010, 11:47 AM
What if the OP moved to the 6th Circuit jurisdiction area? 2003 or 04 Wegrzyn (sp?) v US ruled that Lautenberg did not affect someone that had civil their rights restored.

I think that would be OK.

But the OP here can't do that unless he goes thru a whole formal restoral of rights process in CA (governor's pardon etc.) which is difficult/rare - and really has nothing to do with the Attorney General....

xxsleepyxx
06-07-2010, 2:34 PM
Sorry about your loss or whatever. On a lighter note. I'll sell you my Kel Tec Su-16 for 2 mill

beanok
06-14-2010, 12:12 PM
@ 415:

Well, crap. I had found a loophole in phrasing, and the ATF still hasn't gotten back to me to clarify, but your post sums it up. I had also read about the Skoien case, and am hopeful for results in that. Thanks for posting that letter.

And for the record, I am NOT in favor of putting firearms in the hands of abusers, of which I am not, but this situation is ridiculous, especially since violent felons can go buy a gun....

Did the ATF get back to you yet? thanks....

2Cute2Shoot
06-14-2010, 7:55 PM
wow bluemax...I feel so sorry for you :(

I always feel angry against people who even raise a hand to their spouse, be it men or women, but I do know those relationships where it was just normal for that couple to go too far and it wasn't one sided. So I do think you were dumb to even let it get to that point, but I think your 'lifetime' punishment is waaay too much. :(

So is it a dumb question to ask if you cannot ever own a gun, but are you allowed to shoot them? Can you go with a friend who owns a gun and borrow his? Or can you rent guns at a range? Anyway, I totally don't know...I'm just trying to think of something for you.

And that's a good warning for me..I won't ever be beating up any boyfriends. I don't think I could handle losing my gun rights :)

dad
06-14-2010, 9:56 PM
So is it a dumb question to ask if you cannot ever own a gun, but are you allowed to shoot them? Can you go with a friend who owns a gun and borrow his? Or can you rent guns at a range? Anyway, I totally don't know...I'm just trying to think of something for you.
I read last night, a judge can permit you to have a gun, "but can stipulate" that you can never purchase a firearm.(I'm tired an would have to re-read to much to find where I read that.)

Also for you guys getting expungements. You can get your expungement, but the judge has to say/state that your gun rights are re-stored.

anthonyca
06-15-2010, 5:11 AM
I read last night, a judge can permit you to have a gun, "but can stipulate" that you can never purchase a firearm.(I'm tired an would have to re-read to much to find where I read that.)

Also for you guys getting expungements. You can get your expungement, but the judge has to say/state that your gun rights are re-stored.

Are you talking about state law or federal? Lautenberg is federal and ATF has issued letters, that have already been posted in this thread, that say California's version of expungement doesn't count, but it did in the past. So many people went from prohibited, to non prohibited, to federal felons, on a whim letter by ATF that many don't even know was written. There are some horror stories of people who were caught up in this and charged federally with felonies. There is a case on the VolokhConspiracy.com with a former FFL in this situation. The court and ATF ruled that since he is out of bisiness, and got rid of his firearms, he has no groumds to sue. ATF then threatened him that if he tries to buy a gun, they may charge him. They know they can't have a "clean" plaintiff to challenge this crap unconstitutional law. The games and confusion are a big problem.

People on this board have spent thousands with the very best firearms lawyers in this state and gotten nowhere. What was the date on what you read? ATF changing the rules as they go and turning people (many LEOs) into federal felons on a whim makes much of what you read moot.

Westerner
06-15-2010, 9:07 AM
Anthony, what Dad said makes sense. If a judge from a court of law grants you to own and possess firearms. Why wouldn't it be valid?

Westerner
06-15-2010, 9:21 AM
I think that would be OK.

But the OP here can't do that unless he goes thru a whole formal restoral of rights process in CA (governor's pardon etc.) which is difficult/rare - and really has nothing to do with the Attorney General....

Bweise the OP stated that it's already been 10 years since his incident. So his California firearms rights have been automatically restored. Its the Federal law that is getting in the way.

winnre
06-15-2010, 11:02 AM
So a federal judge would have to grant the gun rights.

Westerner
06-15-2010, 11:31 AM
How come this case did not open the doors to others?



MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge. In this appeal by the government, we are asked to resolve what appears to be a misfit between state and federal law involving the regulation of firearms in the possession of persons found guilty of domestic violence. Because we find the dilemma unresolvable in light of the relevant provisions in Michigan law and our cases interpreting them, we are compelled to affirm the judgment of the district court, which held that defendant Ronald Wegrzyn's conviction under 18 U.S.C. � 922(g)(9) cannot stand. See United States v. Wegrzyn, 106 F. Supp.2d 959 (W.D. Mich. 2000).

The case comes to us in a somewhat unusual procedural posture. Following his arrest for possession of a firearm after previously being convicted for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, in violation of � 922(g)(9), Wegrzyn agreed to a unique plea arrangement with the federal prosecutors. Because of the existence of "extenuating circumstances" in the case, the parties asked the court to take the defendant's plea of guilty to the weapons charge under advisement for a period of 18 months. Pursuant to the plea bargain, the district judge agreed that he would reject the plea after 18 months if the defendant had complied with all imposed conditions of his release. Furthermore, the government agreed to move at that point for dismissal of the charges against Wegrzyn. Unfortunately, the defendant failed to live up to his end of the bargain and, as a result, the government sought revocation of the grace period and timely sentencing on the underlying offense. Instead of granting the request of the assistant United States attorney, however, the district judge expressed his concern about the legal basis for the firearms conviction and eventually ruled that the federal conviction could not stand. Consequently, the court vacated the guilty plea and ordered Wegrzyn released from custody immediately.

In reaching his conclusion in this matter, the district judge recognized that the statutory provision in � 922(g)(9) that prohibits possession of a firearm by any person "who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" is not absolute. Rather, the court noted, the prohibition is subject to certain limited exceptions listed in 18 U.S.C. � 921(a)(33)(B)(ii), which provides:

A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
Id. (emphasis added).

Relevant to this appeal is the unusual impact of M.C.L.A. � 168.758b, which strips from misdemeanants their core civil right to vote only "while confined" in a correctional facility.(1) Thus, a person confined in Michigan for misdemeanor domestic violence, a crime punishable by incarceration for up to 93 days, see M.C.L.A. � 750.81(2), would have his or her civil rights restored immediately upon release, by operation of law, and would, therefore, be exempt from the prohibitions of 18 U.S.C. � 922(g)(9).

For the reasons articulated by this court in United States v. Cassidy, 899 F.2d 543 (6th Cir. 1990), and Hampton v. United States, 191 F.3d 695 (6th Cir. 1999),(2) the district court further determined that misdemeanants convicted of domestic violence in Michigan who were not sentenced to periods of incarceration should also be able to possess firearms upon completion of their sentences of probation or other punishments. Otherwise, noted the district court, the untenable situation would occur in which an individual who presumably committed a more egregious offense justifying incarceration would nevertheless be allowed -- upon completion of the jail sentence -- to possess a firearm, while another misdemeanant whose transgression did not merit such severe punishment would be treated more harshly at the conclusion of a more lenient punishment.

On appeal, the government contends that the district court's analysis both ignores the plain language of the controlling statutes and compels an "absurd result" at odds with the clear intent of Congress and of the Michigan legislature. In fact, however, the district court's ruling in this matter actually gives effect to the exception crafted by Congress and to the peculiarities of Michigan criminal law. In enacting 18 U.S.C. � 921(a)(33)(B)(ii), Congress chose to allow the states themselves to dictate the parameters of the statutory exception by recognizing the differences among state laws concerned with loss of civil rights upon conviction for certain offenses. Consequently, the Michigan legislature itself, by choosing to strip even misdemeanants of a core civil right, created the problem now facing the frustrated federal prosecutors. Indeed, had Michigan lawmakers, like almost all other state legislatures throughout the country, chosen to treat individuals guilty of lesser crimes (misdemeanors) less severely than felons and not stripped those individuals of their right to vote, the problem presented in this case by the later restoration of that right would never have arisen.

In short, it is the peculiar interplay between the relevant federal statutes, Michigan state legislation, and Sixth Circuit precedent that has resulted in a legal conclusion that here permits a statutory exception to swallow the intended rule. Although such a result may not be palatable to many, it is far from "absurd" because, besides being mandated by applicable law, it also gives effect to the Congressional intent to allow states to have input in the definition of the parameters of the crime, and gives effect to the expressed intent of the Michigan legislature.(3) Ironically, the Michigan populace is now forced to sacrifice some of its collective security only because of the state legislature's decision to impose -- in one aspect, at least -- the same penalty to all persons convicted of offenses against the state, regardless of the seriousness of the charge.

In an attempt to circumvent this result, the government also argues that loss of voting rights under M.C.L.A. � 168.758b is not a loss of civil rights as contemplated by 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)(B)(ii). However, in Hampton, 191 F.3d at 699, we have already relied upon M.C.L.A. � 168.758b in noting that Michigan law provides for the loss and the later regaining of the right to vote for purposes of the federal felon-in-possession statute. We see no legitimate reason to abandon that view now in this instance.

Finally, the government contends that because 18 U.S.C. � 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) refers to a criminal defendant's loss of civil rights, the loss of only a single one of the major civil rights of voting, serving on a jury, and holding public office is not sufficient to trigger application of that provision. Again, our decision in Hampton forecloses the result in this case. In Hampton, the loss of only a single civil right was considered sufficient to bar firearms use. It seems apparent that the same rule must apply here.

As a result, in light of Congress's deference to states' treatment of the disabilities associated with criminal convictions, and Michigan's own stripping of the right to vote from convicted misdemeanants, we are -- reluctantly -- forced to conclude that, upon successful completion of his probationary sentence, Ronald Wegrzyn is no longer considered ineligible to possess a firearm under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. � 922(g)(9). The judgment of the district court in this matter is, therefore, AFFIRMED.

winnre
06-15-2010, 11:47 AM
Maybe if CA joins the FFA then any gun stamped "MADE IN CALIFORNIA" can be owned.

winnre
06-18-2010, 8:13 PM
Otis, could the charge be changed to something harder, maybe like felony assault or something that can be reduced and dismissed? I think the DV restriction en masse is wrong. gotta find a way around the minutia.

resident-shooter
06-18-2010, 9:51 PM
-Move to the Philippines or to Switzerland

In order to legally come to US, a person goes through background check, and same applied to many other countries. Yes, a misdemeanor may be enough to deny entrance.

Also, the way our laws are twisted to not protect women but give them the right to abuse justice is simply astounding. Russia has way better laws regarding domestic violence: if no one is shooting/badly hurt, police does not show up :D

Meplat
06-19-2010, 1:46 AM
I have been divorced for 20 years. I have dated very few women in that time. Mostly old friends I have known since high school, who I have known for years and I know are stable and predictable. Nothing else makes any sense. American women have priced themselves out of the market. The tragedy is that decent stable women suffer a lack of relationship opportunities because of the flakes, the nutcakes, and the unfair laws.



I agree with you, but as previously stated, you don't have to "hit". Any physical contact can be deemed a DV incident. A threat with no contact of any kind can be a DV also. It is a very ugly part of our lives now.

Meplat
06-19-2010, 1:52 AM
Read the post! He was not talking about suing DOJ! Someone needs to get back on his meds.



You have no cause for action against any gov't agency, especially the DOJ.

.)

rmcfar_1999
07-06-2010, 1:28 PM
I just wanted to bump this thread and add some thoughts/questions.

I too am "prohibited" from ~11 years ago and have expunged/set aside the sole MCDV tarnish on my record, my DOJ jacket even says "Unspecified Charge", AND I live in a Firearms Freedom state but I'm still restricted by the FED NICS check. Can’t do anything in CA as I don’t live there and they blame the fed…can’t do anything in my home state as they blame CA and can’t do anything with the fed as they blame CA. It’s an intentionally designed run around designed by antis all hinging on an administrative decision made by a lacky.

While I would hope that Skoien/7th Circuit en banc hearing falls in Skoien's favor (well sort of..he seems a shady character), I don't think even that will help anytime soon. I've been on this topic for about 2 years and it seems to me that all these Lautenberg discussions are a bit off topic with regard to solutions depending on the courts…especially when it’s a criminal case with a guy claiming hunting rights after being arrested twice for DV in a 2-4 year span.

Sure it's a crappy law with clear 2A issues; but as the 7th circuit noted, there are supposed to be ways to restore your rights. The court just doesn't understand (and the n00b attorney failed to cite) that the BATF has overreached (again) their powers by interpreting the
"expungement OR set aside" as “expunged AND set aside”. Simply put, the court could strike down the law, but will most likely remand to the lower court for scrutiny checks (as they originally did and the 4th circuit followed) leaving no real answers and the ATF free to change "OR" to "AND" anytime they want.

Many of our problems, and I presume that of other "law abiding citizens", are the administrative decisions of the ATF. Correct me if I'm wrong, but administrative policy is a function of politics and, perhaps, much easier to reverse with a few sympathetic senators on the Judicial questioning ATF's "acting" director during confirmation.

I read elsewhere that someone was told the AFT/DOJ wouldn't stop this until an appeals court told them to; however, everyone has a boss and in this case I think the ATF is standing on thin ice with Heller/McDonald. After all they just reversed a 42 year old policy and redefined transfers...why not a 6 year old policy? We could even potentially avoid the discussion on "wife beaters" and keep it to "government overreach" and enforcement of the original law.

Can anyone direct me to more info on the ATF's nullification of 1203.4/12021 other than the 09/2004 CAG notice? What is the logic that "expunged OR set aside" does not match 1203.4 after 10 years. U.S. v Indelicato held that if one group of felons may possess a firearm because of automatic rights removal and then restored then those who do not have their rights taken away may also possess
a firearm. Not a far leap to say "automatic restoration" applies just as much as automatic removal and should apply to misdemeanants as well as felons.

Has anyone ever heard of an arrest/case where someone has had his/her mcdv dismissed and still been prosecuted? Even the Justice Dept is cautious on dates of conviction and potential for recidivism. http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01117.htm

Anyone have cases on attempting coram nobis due to the CDOJ imposing these changes to the sentence AFTER the plea was entered and the court/attorney/prosecutor advised of the 10 year ban?

</rant>

Westerner
07-06-2010, 6:22 PM
I just wanted to bump this thread and add some thoughts/questions.

I too am "prohibited" from ~11 years ago and have expunged/set aside the sole MCDV tarnish on my record, my DOJ jacket even says "Unspecified Charge", AND I live in a Firearms Freedom state but I'm still restricted by the FED NICS check. Can’t do anything in CA as I don’t live there and they blame the fed…can’t do anything in my home state as they blame CA and can’t do anything with the fed as they blame CA. It’s an intentionally designed run around designed by antis all hinging on an administrative decision made by a lacky.

While I would hope that Skoien/7th Circuit en banc hearing falls in Skoien's favor (well sort of..he seems a shady character), I don't think even that will help anytime soon. I've been on this topic for about 2 years and it seems to me that all these Lautenberg discussions are a bit off topic with regard to solutions depending on the courts…especially when it’s a criminal case with a guy claiming hunting rights after being arrested twice for DV in a 2-4 year span.

Sure it's a crappy law with clear 2A issues; but as the 7th circuit noted, there are supposed to be ways to restore your rights. The court just doesn't understand (and the n00b attorney failed to cite) that the BATF has overreached (again) their powers by interpreting the
"expungement OR set aside" as “expunged AND set aside”. Simply put, the court could strike down the law, but will most likely remand to the lower court for scrutiny checks (as they originally did and the 4th circuit followed) leaving no real answers and the ATF free to change "OR" to "AND" anytime they want.

Many of our problems, and I presume that of other "law abiding citizens", are the administrative decisions of the ATF. Correct me if I'm wrong, but administrative policy is a function of politics and, perhaps, much easier to reverse with a few sympathetic senators on the Judicial questioning ATF's "acting" director during confirmation.

I read elsewhere that someone was told the AFT/DOJ wouldn't stop this until an appeals court told them to; however, everyone has a boss and in this case I think the ATF is standing on thin ice with Heller/McDonald. After all they just reversed a 42 year old policy and redefined transfers...why not a 6 year old policy? We could even potentially avoid the discussion on "wife beaters" and keep it to "government overreach" and enforcement of the original law.

Can anyone direct me to more info on the ATF's nullification of 1203.4/12021 other than the 09/2004 CAG notice? What is the logic that "expunged OR set aside" does not match 1203.4 after 10 years. U.S. v Indelicato held that if one group of felons may possess a firearm because of automatic rights removal and then restored then those who do not have their rights taken away may also possess
a firearm. Not a far leap to say "automatic restoration" applies just as much as automatic removal and should apply to misdemeanants as well as felons.

Has anyone ever heard of an arrest/case where someone has had his/her mcdv dismissed and still been prosecuted? Even the Justice Dept is cautious on dates of conviction and potential for recidivism. http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01117.htm

Anyone have cases on attempting coram nobis due to the CDOJ imposing these changes to the sentence AFTER the plea was entered and the court/attorney/prosecutor advised of the 10 year ban?

</rant>

My cousin was in the same boat. There will be relief in a year though. A big group of people have filed a lawsuit against the state of CA. These people will be represented by attorney Don Kilmer. One of the best firearms attorney here, and an active member of Calguns. I also believe that the recent Mcdonald case will give it more strength.

Westerner
07-06-2010, 6:47 PM
Is there any way to be included in the lawsuit as a plaintiff? Any status on this or a case name to look up? You say there will be relief, but I don't want to get my hopes up.... again....

I believe the list is already full. I wouldn't worry ,this misdemeanor gun ban is very unconstitutional. Not to mention very stupid to.

bruss01
07-06-2010, 7:19 PM
It never ceases to amaze me that people can come up with $2-$400,000 for a house, $20 - $40,000 for a car, but can't come up with $10,000 for their freedom. Sorry, but I would fight it with every cent I could beg, borrow or steal. A guilty verdict stays with you for life, regardless of what they tell you.

Very sorry for the OP. You got shafted, friend, but there's no point in telling you that because you're already well aware. Maybe someday a court case will set things right. At least things are moving in the right direction thanks to Alan Gura. You have hope that the future may be brighter.

anthonyca
07-06-2010, 7:28 PM
My cousin was in the same boat. There will be relief in a year though. A big group of people have filed a lawsuit against the state of CA. These people will be represented by attorney Don Kilmer. One of the best firearms attorney here, and an active member of Calguns. I also believe that the recent Mcdonald case will give it more strength.

Do you have info on this? I know someone with letters from his attorney stating he would not loose his gun rights. This plea ended his military career and hurt his job prospects. He had an attorney file a motion to dismiss and the new judge was in shock at the evidence. The judge stated he would throw out the plea if it was his first amendment rights or right to vote, but the implications regarding the 2nd amendment were too much of a risk. He wants to go it again as the judge dismissed the case without predjudice and he has been saving money for years for this. I was in the court and you could tell the judge knew he and his new attorney were right but didn't like the second amendment.

anthonyca
07-06-2010, 7:33 PM
It never ceases to amaze me that people can come up with $2-$400,000 for a house, $20 - $40,000 for a car, but can't come up with $10,000 for their freedom. Sorry, but I would fight it with every cent I could beg, borrow or steal. A guilty verdict stays with you for life, regardless of what they tell you.

Very sorry for the OP. You got shafted, friend, but there's no point in telling you that because you're already well aware. Maybe someday a court case will set things right. At least things are moving in the right direction thanks to Alan Gura. You have hope that the future may be brighter.

The guy I just wrote about was a couple of months past his 19th bday and had never been in any kind of trouble. He was gullible and when he ran out of money he just signed what his lawyer put infront of him. On top of that she LIED to him. He still has her letters with her signature proving that. He also has the court docket proving he was never in court untill his progress reports, she appeared for him.

I learned a lot about life from seeing this.

Westerner
07-06-2010, 7:37 PM
Do you have info on this? I know someone with letters from his attorney stating he would not loose his gun rights. This plea ended his military career and hurt his job prospects. He had an attorney file a motion to dismiss and the new judge was in shock at the evidence. The judge stated he would throw out the plea if it was his first amendment rights or right to vote, but the implications regarding the 2nd amendment were too much of a risk. He wants to go it again as the judge dismissed the case without predjudice and he has been saving money for years for this. I was in the court and you could tell the judge knew he and his new attorney were right but didn't like the second amendment.

I don't have the exact details, but my cousin called and spoke with Don briefly on this. It seems that this case has been in preparation for some time now. It would probably be best for you to call Don yourself, and ask him those questions.

anthonyca
07-06-2010, 7:43 PM
I don't have the exact details, but my cousin called and spoke with Don briefly on this. It seems that this case has been in preparation for some time now. It would probably be best for you to call Don yourself, and ask him those questions.

Thank you.

nick
07-06-2010, 7:52 PM
It never ceases to amaze me that people can come up with $2-$400,000 for a house, $20 - $40,000 for a car, but can't come up with $10,000 for their freedom. Sorry, but I would fight it with every cent I could beg, borrow or steal. A guilty verdict stays with you for life, regardless of what they tell you.

Very sorry for the OP. You got shafted, friend, but there's no point in telling you that because you're already well aware. Maybe someday a court case will set things right. At least things are moving in the right direction thanks to Alan Gura. You have hope that the future may be brighter.

That's because those people take a 15-30 years mortgage to buy that house, 3-6 years loan to buy that car. Lawyer retainer is usually upfront.

Also, many people rent and drive used cars they bought for $4-5K.

duldej
08-17-2010, 9:44 PM
the part that gets me about these cases (and 5250 cases) is that there's no due process to remedy the lifelong ban.

it's a travesty of justice, in my firm opinion, that superior court judges dish-out this sort of thing knowing full well that they can't eat their words because it never comes-back around.

even a death sentence can, at least in principle, be repealed by a governor's pardon.

and why do they call dv cases misdemeanors anyway when the penalty is stiffer than most felony penalties!

i sincerely think that judges in the criminal courts' hands are tied and that they know that they're shooting themselves in the foot, legally, but that they're stymied.

dad
08-18-2010, 2:50 PM
Just some info., I've never seen this site before.
http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv.htm


Who struck the first blow?
Top

The 1985 National Family Violence Survey, as reported by women themselves, shows that 52.7% of the women reported they struck the first blow, and 42.6% reported that their husbands struck the first blow. It is true that we don't know why these women struck the first blow, but neither do we know why 42.6% of the men struck the first blow. In an Alberta, Canadian study (1987) women reported being "three times more likely to initiate violence in a relationship" (Everson, B. & Milstone C., 1999). Jurik and Gregware also found that 42% of the women who had been murdered by their husbands had initiated the first assault against their husbands (Jurik, 1989; Jurik & Gregware, 1989).

anthonyca
08-18-2010, 4:35 PM
Many men have been attacked by a female spouse. In fact there is a story floating around work about how a former co worker of ours was "beat up by his wife", and it's seems to be funny to everyone. She threw some heavy flower pot at him, cold cocked him, and broke a bunch of things in the house. It's no laughing matter but many of the guys seem to think it's hilarious.

The real problem is that there doesn't have to be any "blows" thrown to land in jail with a lifetime loss of a fundamental right. I'm too lazy to look it up now, but I have posted case law and California jury instructions stating that you don't have to strike any blows. ANY touching no mater how slight,and even if you intended to do no harm and gain no advantage, is DV, with a lifetime loss of a fundamental right. I can guarantee many people here have committed DV.

Just some info., I've never seen this site before.
http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv.htm


Who struck the first blow?
Top

The 1985 National Family Violence Survey, as reported by women themselves, shows that 52.7% of the women reported they struck the first blow, and 42.6% reported that their husbands struck the first blow. It is true that we don't know why these women struck the first blow, but neither do we know why 42.6% of the men struck the first blow. In an Alberta, Canadian study (1987) women reported being "three times more likely to initiate violence in a relationship" (Everson, B. & Milstone C., 1999). Jurik and Gregware also found that 42% of the women who had been murdered by their husbands had initiated the first assault against their husbands (Jurik, 1989; Jurik & Gregware, 1989).

dad
08-31-2010, 9:21 PM
It never ceases to amaze me that people can come up with $2-$400,000 for a house, $20 - $40,000 for a car, but can't come up with $10,000 for their freedom. Sorry, but I would fight it with every cent I could beg, borrow or steal. A guilty verdict stays with you for life, regardless of what they tell you.

"The court will tell you, you are prohibited for a 10 year ban on guns"! You will never hear the words "Lautenberg Amendment", "nor will you be informed that a misdemeanor conviction is a life time ban"!

QQQ
01-19-2011, 10:05 AM
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but that's a prime example of why lifetime bans are wrong.

And it never ceases to amaze me how many gun owners continue to support banning gun ownership by "prohibited persons," even if the prohibition is absolutely ludicrous.

MontClaire
01-19-2011, 10:14 AM
The idea of a one night stands and call girls does not seem so silly anymore, huh? Sorry to hear about your rights taken away. I would work hard on getting the money to pay off a better attorney and see what can be done. Everything is possible with the money.

1strikeimout
11-21-2012, 12:34 PM
There is only one way that I have found that will restore our (people convicted of DV) 2nd Amendment right. That is to sign a petition to have the Lautenberg Amendment repealed. I am asking all my friends and family and co-workers to sign the petition and then have all their friends do the same and then those friends do the same and so on. If the petition gets enough signatures, there may be a chance for us to restore our 2nd Amendment right.

Please sign petition here:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-domestic-violence-offender-gun-ban-also-referred-lautenberg-amendment/B661YYmx?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

ClarenceBoddicker
11-21-2012, 1:13 PM
You made some bad decisions & are now suffering the consequences.

1) Ignorance of the law. Lautenburg went into effect in 1997, so you should have known about it, especially since you were a gun owner.

2) Selection of a mate. I've sure if you look back honestly, you had many hints & signs before what happened and possibly even before having kids. I'm sure you 2 had many fun & exciting fights before that one. I'm sure you knew how the LE/DV system worked before what happened & decided to roll the dice and stay with her. Some people get a high from being in bad relationships like that. Bad relationships can be just as addictive as drugs or alcohol to some people.

If you have now decided that gun ownership is suddenly more important than thrilling fights with females, you are limited in what you can do. Forget wasting time & energy in trying to clear your record. You plead guilty, it's time accept personal responsibility & to move on. Learn what the 1968 GCA is & how it allows you to still legally own some types of guns called antiques. Move to a free state & buy those type of guns. Enjoy using them before even that small window of freedom is closed. You may wish to teach you kids some valuable life lessons.

Laythor
11-21-2012, 1:54 PM
my ex wife tried to snatch full custody of our son at the start of our divorce proceedings.

we had already separated and were living in different homes. she came over one night and demanded we get back together. After 30 minutes of her screaming I had enough and pushed her out the front door.

Next night the police came and arrested me. She had a small pink mark on her arm and filed a report with the best line i've ever read in my life "he has never physically abused me but has looked at me with murder in his eyes". So she was able to get a TRO (temporary restraining order) and tried to roll it into sole custody of our son.

I spent a night in jail, bailed out the next morning, spent 7500 on a retainer for a lawyer to handle the DV complaint and in the end the DA refused to file and I never had to go to court over it. The first attorney I went to suggested I take a plea and save myself some cash, I thanked him for his time and left.

So people, when you're married to a crazy person and you start talking about divorce, and that crazy person asks you "did you ever love me", say yes... i would have saved myself a lot of money.

stix213
11-21-2012, 2:16 PM
I love zombie threads raised from the dead by 1 posters.

And another useless whitehouse.gov petition.....

I'm sure with enough signatures Obama will get right on it :rolleyes:

Laythor
11-21-2012, 2:19 PM
necro threads are the best threads.

MigNoche
11-21-2012, 2:20 PM
Build your own AK! Unjust laws should not be followed.

Atlantaboi2012
11-21-2012, 2:39 PM
Yeah your goose is cooked unfortunately because the DOJ is rechecking their files and taking second looks at folks background including anything that has to do with a fighting conviction. They dont care if you beat up 10 men in wheelchairs with baseball bats, if you have a domestic conviction, your done. The DOJ CALLED me and said I had to show proof that some scuffle I got into when I was 17 which was DISMISSED in court wasnt Domestic violence(DV) and that record has been sealed for almost 20 years! They said I had 30 days to show court docs or I would have to surrender my CA registered weapons. Just that easy huh? NOPE..I had to pay a lawyer $500 just to walk into a courthouse in my hometown and pick up a ORIGINAL doc signed by the county clerks office. I tell people who collect guns or who have to carry one for work to PLEASE be careful when it comes to who they deal with. One bad argument can ruin your entire life and as ANY lawyer will tell you...the LAW is ALWAYS gonna be on their side. As long as Im a gun owner, I will stay single and free.

skyscraper
11-21-2012, 3:09 PM
Build your own AK! Unjust laws should not be followed.

EAsy there fella.

Theseus
11-21-2012, 3:09 PM
"Holy necro post, Batman!"

Sent from my Galaxy Note 2 LTE Using TapataIk 2

Donk310
11-21-2012, 6:06 PM
Now you know for your next life... stay away from marriage.

aklover_91
11-21-2012, 6:08 PM
-Move to the Philippines or to Switzerland

From what I've read, the Czech Republic is actually a better bet.

The basic gun license makes it so you can get the sort of stuff we get here, counts for carry, and is actually available for permanent residents.

Supposedly, if the local police chief isn't a dick and you can show you really are a hobbyist, you can get the license upgraded for full autos and some other stuff.

winnre
11-21-2012, 8:21 PM
Now you know for your next life... stay away from marriage.

No kidding. My wife always says she will tell the cops I hit her if we have a verbal fight. I already lost.

epilepticninja
11-21-2012, 9:20 PM
It's funny that with Lautenberg the FEDS override the STATE, but with AW laws the STATE overrides the FEDS.

Good point.

Laythor
11-21-2012, 9:34 PM
No kidding. My wife always says she will tell the cops I hit her if we have a verbal fight. I already lost.

as the officer who transported me said "everyone get's one free, this was hers" :p

huntercf
11-21-2012, 10:20 PM
Here's a thought, can you contact your ex (through a lawyer) and have her recant her story and admit that she lied and have your charges reversed. I believe the statue of limitations are over for perjury. This may be an easier way of getting your rights restored and maybe enough years have passed that she isn't such a db anymore. IANAL, so I don't know if this will work, but since she was arrested as well that may benefit you if she agrees to admit that she lied because she was afraid. Good luck.

MigNoche
11-21-2012, 10:21 PM
EAsy there fella.

Build your own AK! Unjust Unconstitutional laws should not be followed.


Fixed it for you.

....I know its a radical sounding statement, but it really shouldn't be.

"I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail

Vladimir
11-22-2012, 8:20 AM
And people wonder why I don't get married/relationship.:TFH:

The best thing to do would be to talk with an expungement lawyer here in CA.

Erik.

haha thats exactly what I tell myself too

dieselpower
11-22-2012, 8:46 AM
there are no Unconstitutional laws against building an AK...there are build parties monthly

skyscraper
11-22-2012, 10:47 AM
there are no Unconstitutional laws against building an AK...there are build parties monthly

I took it as he was saying that if your right to bear arms is revoked due to a domestic violence charge, you should not follow it.

Ford8N
11-22-2012, 1:27 PM
anytime you become involved romantically with a person of volatile nature, you are taking very large risks that can include and extend past your gun rights. if you listen to the news or believe in "Murphy's Law" you will not even venture a rebuttal to that.

-Brady

This^^^^

Stay the h*** away from crazy women.

anthonyca
11-22-2012, 1:43 PM
No kidding. My wife always says she will tell the cops I hit her if we have a verbal fight. I already lost.

Wtf? Is she joking? If not, why would you be with someone like that? Atleast I learned about evil women when I was a teenager.

Not saying your wife is. I hope something was lost in translation on the internet. If she is.serious, that is no joke. It would be better to be accused of murder than DV. Are least murder requires PC for arrest and conviction. I was a witness to someone who was arrested after an ex GF wanted to ruin his life. She did do that. This is no joke.

ClarenceBoddicker
11-22-2012, 2:53 PM
Wtf? Is she joking? If not, why would you be with someone like that? Atleast I learned about evil women when I was a teenager.

Not saying your wife is. I hope something was lost in translation on the internet. If she is.serious, that is no joke. It would be better to be accused of murder than DV. Are least murder requires PC for arrest and conviction. I was a witness to someone who was arrested after an ex GF wanted to ruin his life. She did do that. This is no joke.

Amazingly some guys get off on crap like that. They love to get into screaming matches & playing tit or tat. I knew a guy that was into that. I asked him what he got out of it. He said she was a "challenge" & it was a fun game to play and he got a rush out of it. They had some kids & he was always leaving and coming back, going to strip clubs, getting caught messing around with other women, etc. Pretty sick. Some guys are just as mental as some women are.

winnre
11-22-2012, 3:10 PM
I hate what I am in, and we simply avoid one another until we can make our own peace. The house is literally divided.

Kappy
11-22-2012, 3:47 PM
Sounds like your malpractice suit against your lawyer should pay for your newer, more expensive lawyer.

Tacit Blue
11-22-2012, 8:30 PM
OP was the charge for DV 243 (e) 1 or the 273 ( felony)? If its the 273 that your " lautenberg'd" you have a federal ban placed against you thats holding you up. A conviction and a charge is the difference of owning a firearm or not. If you were just charged but the case was dropped, you'd stand a decent chance for restoration. A conviction is going to be hard. Your going to have to get a lawyer to restore your firearms fights, and appeal that conviction to a judge.

ClarenceBoddicker
11-23-2012, 2:01 AM
OP was the charge for DV 243 (e) 1 or the 273 ( felony)? If its the 273 that your " lautenberg'd" you have a federal ban placed against you thats holding you up. A conviction and a charge is the difference of owning a firearm or not. If you were just charged but the case was dropped, you'd stand a decent chance for restoration. A conviction is going to be hard. Your going to have to get a lawyer to restore your firearms fights, and appeal that conviction to a judge.

It's a dead thread that was brought up for some unknown reason. The OP plead to DV, which is the same thing as being found guilty. AFAIK unless you get a pardon, your gun rights are forever lost if you plead or are found guilty to DV or a felony in CA. The GCA & Lautenburg does not apply to owning antique guns. CA should allow the OP to own antiques if he only plead to a misdemeanor, once his 10 year ban is up. Not 100% sure about that though.

Spyguy
11-23-2012, 3:45 AM
No kidding. My wife always says she will tell the cops I hit her if we have a verbal fight. I already lost.
Always? My advice to you (besides getting out of that relationship) would be to set up a hidden video camera with a good microphone and record her making that statement. More than once would be even better.

Lives_In_Fresno
11-23-2012, 7:17 AM
Go after your old lawyer for malpractice, use any money award to pay the above mentioned expensive lawyer to get it expunged.

Malpractice for what? For telling him it was 10 years prohibition? Good luck on that.

krucam
11-23-2012, 7:22 AM
3 words:

Enos v. Holder
http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/enosvholder/

MigNoche
11-23-2012, 12:58 PM
I took it as he was saying that if your right to bear arms is revoked due to a domestic violence charge, you should not follow it.

Thank you! I also want to point out that I am vehemently against abusing a woman.

....Just for the record.

Kappy
11-23-2012, 11:18 PM
Always? My advice to you (besides getting out of that relationship) would be to set up a hidden video camera with a good microphone and record her making that statement. More than once would be even better.

It would have to be outdoors or it would be considered inadmissible for legal proceedings? Any lawyers who can verify that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kappy
11-23-2012, 11:19 PM
Malpractice for what? For telling him it was 10 years prohibition? Good luck on that.

Well... Yeah. That would be malpractice. He gave his client bad advice which he shouldn't have. It caused actual harm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DannyInSoCal
11-23-2012, 11:28 PM
Hypothetically -

You could get a fake Mexican drivers license -

That way you get free health care AND its only a matter of time before you get free sidearms...

Meplat
11-24-2012, 12:34 AM
Your up s-creek! Should never hit a women no matter what.

You don't have to hit one she just has to say you did. Or just say you threatened to. I'm never getting married again. Our women have priced themselves out of the market. I will not get romantically involved with a female unless I have known her well for at least ten years! No bat **** crazy surprizes for me thanks.

joev2340
11-24-2012, 2:02 AM
Try and get a governors pardon which will give all rights back

Mdmiller
12-18-2012, 4:26 PM
If you are dealing with an old misdemeanor DV conviction and you are now prohibited federally look at it from this angle;

You may possibly be able to petition the court to withdraw you original guilty or no contest plea. When doing this you may be able to then negotiate with the DA to plead guilty to another charge. But this charge (whatever it may be in the PC) must be an infraction.
If you then have a conviction for an infraction you should be clear of the
Lautenberg Amendment. The Lautenberg Amendment catches alot of people because it speaks of misdemeanors convictions with domestic violence elements. But if you have an infraction you should be clear.
Expunging, dismissing or anything else will absolutely not help.

I'm not going to get into the particulars of how to do this and I'm not saying this will absolutely work in your particular case. I'm not giving legal advice. Do some research and seek assistance when needed. But I will say it IS possible to do this on your own for little cost.
Hope that helps.

chris
12-18-2012, 4:43 PM
roomate is going through the same thing loss of guns for 10 years. he is fighting. cannot even go shooting with me at the range and no black powder either.

DenaliPark
12-18-2012, 5:17 PM
I pleaded guilty to domestic violence back in may 1998 because my lawyer said just couseling and a 10 year gun ban or pay him 10k more and we will go to trial and your wife will lie and youll lose.

First of all I wanted a trial because my wife attacked me and was arrested also.She feared prosecution and asked my son to lie to the police, by the way the police never talked to me.She also threatened to divorce me if I took it to trial,I divorced her anyway.


Faced with prosecustion alone and didnt have 10k more I plea bargained. Now the 10 years is up and I am banned for life,even my old attorney said its 10 years but obviously doesnt know the law. I was a competitive shooter all my life until then, Help !!!!!!

Nothing you can do, you can try, you can and should consult an attorney, but it will make no difference, you are now fully disqualified from ever owning a firearm in the USA. Thats specifically why the domestice abuse law(Lautenberg Amendment) was crafted, it had absolutely nothing to do with saving "poor, defenseless, bullied women from abuse," it was a gun grab by the socialist political party, it has worked to perfection....

A domestic abuse tag is a predicate disqulification, you should have bashed her in the nose, at least you'd be left with the memory of the satisfaction of that particular moment, however brief it was....never plea bargain with your rights at stake.....;)

MindBeyondAverage
12-18-2012, 5:34 PM
We may all be criminals soon anyway, or those of us who will not comply with gun bans. So, I say join the rest of us criminals.

OIFVet03
12-18-2012, 9:53 PM
That really sucks. I feel for you man. It sounds like you are just screwed. I really hope you can get your rights back.

Moonshine
12-19-2012, 3:38 AM
After what's going on right now there may not be much difference between your situation and the rest of us in this lovely state... Competitive shooting is unlikely to continue if laws become so restrictive people are paying and undergoing annual background checks just to own the firearms they have.

momoshooter
12-19-2012, 4:16 AM
It is truly unfortunate that we seem to have plenty in absolute numbers of people who are interested in owning firearms, but no where near that same number who are interested in fighting to protect the right that allows them to possess them in the first place.

Kid Stanislaus
12-19-2012, 8:59 AM
And people wonder why I don't get married/relationship.:TFH:

The best thing to do would be to talk with an expungement lawyer here in CA.

Erik.

Domestic violence is not limited to people who are married.;)

five.five-six
12-19-2012, 9:01 AM
I'm PROHIBITED from owning a gun help !!


welcome to the club, looks like we all will be prohibited too in short order

freonr22
12-19-2012, 9:06 AM
welcome to the club, looks like we all will be prohibited too in short order
Lolz at replying at a 2.8 year old thread