PDA

View Full Version : California-only non-violent firearm felonies and free-states


juicemansam
06-25-2010, 1:09 PM
I've searched by couldn't find anything via the regular search or google (maybe I didn't use the right keywords).

Lets say somebody gets pinned with a California-only non-violent firearm felony while living in CA. Later in their life they move to a free-state where what they did would not have been an issue, much less a felony. What would be of their 2A rights in their new home?

bwiese
06-25-2010, 1:12 PM
Felons can't own guns. (Exception: Fed antitrust cases, so good ol' executives could retain their duck guns.)

Dude would have to somehow clean up his CA felony in CA before anything could happen.

If it's a wobbler, a 17(b) proceeding could help clean it up.

Otherwise full rights restoral takes pardon/gov action etc.

I could see interesting litigation here, but it's probably way 'down list'.

thayne
06-25-2010, 1:16 PM
Felons can't own guns. (Exception: Fed antitrust cases, so good ol' executives could retain their duck guns.)

Dude would have to somehow clean up his CA felony in CA before anything could happen.

If it's a wobbler, a 17(b) proceeding could help clean it up.

Otherwise full rights restoral takes pardon/gov action etc.

I could see interesting litigation here, but it's probably way 'down list'.
I can see that being important down the road, maybe the not so distant future road. It seems like everything is becoming a felony...

CHS
06-25-2010, 2:06 PM
I can see that being important down the road, maybe the not so distant future road. It seems like everything is becoming a felony...

Well yeah, they ran out of misdemeanors :)

winnre
06-25-2010, 2:31 PM
Most likely they need to be clear with California before they move. If they move without clearing up the record then their records may in a way move with them. If you think you may move, talk to a lawyer while still in the state.

GaryV
06-25-2010, 2:48 PM
It doesn't matter what state a felony is committed in, or whether that act is a felony anywhere else. If you are convicted of a crime that is punishable by more than 1 year in prison in the state where you are convicted, you are automatically a prohibited person under FEDERAL law, so anywhere you go, or don't go, in the US, you are prohibited. Moving to another state has no bearing on your status one way or another, no matter the laws of that state. It's a federal matter.

winnre
06-25-2010, 3:00 PM
GaryV, one example may be possessing high-cap magazines illegally. Buy them in CA today and you get busted. Anywhere else and you are free to walk down the road.

Laws like this really make it a head scratcher.

GaryV
06-25-2010, 3:11 PM
GaryV, one example may be possessing high-cap magazines illegally. Buy them in CA today and you get busted. Anywhere else and you are free to walk down the road.

Laws like this really make it a head scratcher.

Not really. I agree that it is a stupid law, but the federal law simply says that if you are convicted of a felony (which it defines as any crime for which you can be sentenced to more than 1 year imprisonment), you are banned. Period. Even a "crime" such as the high-cap mags, which is not a crime in other states, still counts. If you've been convicted in CA of a felony, you are permanently banned under FEDERAL law, until and unless you can get CA to erase your conviction. The fact that the act is not even an infraction anywhere else is irrelevant. The logic may be confusing, but the facts are not.

winnre
06-25-2010, 3:16 PM
Not really. I agree that it is a stupid law, but the federal law simply says that if you are convicted of a felony (which it defines as any crime for which you can be sentenced to more than 1 year imprisonment), you are banned. Period. Even a "crime" such as the high-cap mags, which is not a crime in other states, still counts. If you've been convicted in CA of a felony, you are permanently banned under FEDERAL law, until and unless you can get CA to erase your conviction. The fact that the act is not even an infraction anywhere else is irrelevant. The logic may be confusing, but the facts are not.

Still sucks.

Dr.Lou
06-25-2010, 3:22 PM
"It doesn't matter what state a felony is committed in, or whether that act is a felony anywhere else. If you are convicted of a crime that is punishable by more than 1 year in prison in the state where you are convicted, you are automatically a prohibited person under FEDERAL law, so anywhere you go, or don't go, in the US, you are prohibited. Moving to another state has no bearing on your status one way or another, no matter the laws of that state. It's a federal matter."



Move to Alaska. Ak allows convicted felons to possess firearms as long as they can't be easily concealed - handguns. Although still a federal violation, it is not enforced because of the need for protection and hunting for subsistance. This is especially true in the bush. FWIW, I hold an Alaska Advanced Police Officer certification. Last year I had a felon drop a huge brown bear on his front porch with his "girlfriend's" (wink, wink)S&W 500. I didn't even give it a second thought. I definitely couldn't have handled it that way in CA.

Scott Connors
06-25-2010, 3:23 PM
Not really. I agree that it is a stupid law, but the federal law simply says that if you are convicted of a felony (which it defines as any crime for which you can be sentenced to more than 1 year imprisonment), you are banned. Period. Even a "crime" such as the high-cap mags, which is not a crime in other states, still counts. If you've been convicted in CA of a felony, you are permanently banned under FEDERAL law, until and unless you can get CA to erase your conviction. The fact that the act is not even an infraction anywhere else is irrelevant. The logic may be confusing, but the facts are not.

IIRC, you may be convicted in a foreign country of a crime that is a felony there but may be not only legal but constitutionally protected here. I think there was a case where someone was convicted of bringing Bibles into the former Soviet Union and that resulted in loss of firearm rights here. I know there was a case where someone was convicted in Mexico of possessing ammunition (he drove his truck down there and the federales found a .22 LR or shotgun shell under his seat) and he was determined to be a convicted felon under federal law.

winnre
06-25-2010, 3:30 PM
Maybe one day rather than felons not getting guns they can differentiate between malum in se and malum prohibidum with the latter retaining their gun rights.

Munk
06-25-2010, 9:53 PM
One thing i'm curious about with this is... If the particular crime he was convicted of stops being a crime later (Hi-caps for example). Would the conviction still remain on his record and prohibit him from getting guns. Is there already a precedent for this? or will it be necessary to make one?

dantodd
06-25-2010, 11:37 PM
GaryV, one example may be possessing high-cap magazines illegally. Buy them in CA today and you get busted. Anywhere else and you are free to walk down the road.

Laws like this really make it a head scratcher.

The idea is not to prohibit people who do X or Y from gun ownership. The idea is to prohibit people from owning guns who have shown a lack of respect for the law.

Anchors
06-26-2010, 12:24 AM
A felon is a felon to Feds.

Even if:
You commit a wobbler crime in State A. They charge you with a misdemeanor. Maybe a fine and some community service.
Then you move to State B where the wobbler crime isn't illegal at all.
But in State A they COULD have given you a year and a half in prison.
You still fail Form 4473.

The idea is not to prohibit people who do X or Y from gun ownership. The idea is to prohibit people from owning guns who have shown a lack of respect for the law.

I pretty much agree. They don't want people with lack of respect for (or ignorance of) the law owning firearms.

I think it's up to everyone to understand and follow laws that apply to them (whether you agree with them or not.)
One of my best friends has been in state prison since he was 18, going on 2 1/2 years.
Take a trip to one sometime and see if it's not an eye opener about respect for the law. Whether you think it's right or wrong, that's the way it is.
You play by their rules or you don't play at all.

Anchors
06-26-2010, 12:29 AM
One thing i'm curious about with this is... If the particular crime he was convicted of stops being a crime later (Hi-caps for example). Would the conviction still remain on his record and prohibit him from getting guns. Is there already a precedent for this? or will it be necessary to make one?

I believe so.
You were still convicted of a crime for which you could have been sentenced to more than one year in prison.
So I guess if you were convicted of a crime under a law SCOTUS later ruled to be unconstitutional you would still be prohibited.

Hogxtz
06-26-2010, 6:49 AM
Where I work, I had to process a guy on felony drunk driving. Normally, he would have been ok at .06 blood alcohol level, but because he had a fender bender while parking his car and bruised in forehead on the steering wheel, he was booked for felony dui. A crash resulting in injury to anyone, while any alcohol is in your system, results in felony drunk driving, which results in failing dros for gun buys because you are now a felon, (if convicted). This is abused by Ca, just an excuse to remove someones rights to own guns. Granted, the dude screwed up, but loss of gun rights??? How is that justified??

winnre
06-26-2010, 7:18 AM
Also in the military since it is federal level EVERYTHING is a felony if it goers to courtmartial.

GaryV
06-26-2010, 7:30 AM
This is abused by Ca, just an excuse to remove someones rights to own guns. Granted, the dude screwed up, but loss of gun rights??? How is that justified??

The problem with this is not just gun rights, but general basic rights of citizenship are removed, like voting. The point of these "rights removal" laws are very much like the CCW laws of CA. They were put in place to create a permanent underclass, originally meant to be made up primarily of minorities. They make anyone convicted of a "felony" essentially the equivalent of a freed black man prior to the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Since those Amendments have made it legally impossible to have a native-born non-citizen class of residents who can be easily exploited because of their complete lack of political power, these "rights removal" laws have reinstated that ability. And as the desire for increasing the size of that group increases, all that needs be done is to make more previously lawful acts "felonies".

The idea of "All Men Are Created Equal" has never actually been very inclusive in the US, but the post-Civil War amendments, and the push for 14th Amendment incorporation in the 20th century has threatened to make it so. In order to prevent it we got these "rights removal" laws. Given that most of us have probably unknowingly committed at least one act that could potentially be a "felony" under the current definition, we're all primed to lose our citizenship. And the beauty of this system is that most people at risk of this will still support it, while at the same time the social and political elites are protected, because they either exclude those criminal acts peculiar to them (like federal white-collar crimes), or simply work out plea deals that get them a lesser charge.

All these laws need to be done away with. You've either paid your debt to society, in which case you should be a free citizen with all the rights that entails, or you haven't, in which case you should still be locked up. Rights removal of non-incarcerated individuals should be illegal, otherwise they're not actually "rights", are they?

norcal01
06-26-2010, 8:44 AM
Where I work, I had to process a guy on felony drunk driving. Normally, he would have been ok at .06 blood alcohol level, but because he had a fender bender while parking his car and bruised in forehead on the steering wheel, he was booked for felony dui. A crash resulting in injury to anyone, while any alcohol is in your system, results in felony drunk driving, which results in failing dros for gun buys because you are now a felon, (if convicted).

I sincerely hope that you work somewhere outside of law enforcement or the courts... Are you sure there wasn't another person involved?

23153. (a) It is unlawful for any person, while under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle and concurrently do any act forbidden by law, or neglect any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to any person other than the driver.

Big Jake
06-26-2010, 9:58 AM
Note to self...

DON'T COMMIT ANY FELONIES! :rolleyes:

dustoff31
06-26-2010, 10:02 AM
Note to self...

DON'T COMMIT ANY FELONIES! :rolleyes:

There you go, making sense again. ;)

frankm
06-26-2010, 10:06 AM
Also in the military since it is federal level EVERYTHING is a felony if it goers to courtmartial.

You're only a felon with a Dishonorable Discharge. Anything else is either a non-crime or a misdemeanor. I think the rule is, that the military crime must have a civilian equivalent. For instance, desertion has no civilian equivalent, therefore, it is not considered a "crime" whereas a DD for robbery does have a civilian equivalent.

N6ATF
06-26-2010, 10:08 AM
Note to self...

DON'T COMMIT ANY FELONIES! :rolleyes:

That works until emitting CO2 is made a capital felony, as our exhalations are gross pollutants, after all.

56Chevy
06-26-2010, 10:18 AM
That works until emitting CO2 is made a capital felony, as our exhalations are gross pollutants, after all.
Just don't live. Then you can't commit any felonies. :rolleyes:

Theseus
06-26-2010, 10:47 AM
A felon is a felon to Feds.

Even if:
You commit a wobbler crime in State A. They charge you with a misdemeanor. Maybe a fine and some community service.
Then you move to State B where the wobbler crime isn't illegal at all.
But in State A they COULD have given you a year and a half in prison.
You still fail Form 4473.

Unless you have a cite to case law my lawyer and I would disagree.

If you are charged with a misdemeanor it can't be punished with more than 1 year, and therefore does not qualify. Wobbler or not, it doesn't matter. Otherwise 626.9 wouldn't specify as a 10 prohibitive misdemeanor.

Hogxtz
06-26-2010, 12:43 PM
I sincerely hope that you work somewhere outside of law enforcement or the courts... Are you sure there wasn't another person involved?

23153. (a) It is unlawful for any person, while under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle and concurrently do any act forbidden by law, or neglect any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to any person other than the driver.

I have worked there for 24 years, and yes I know the elements to 23153. I have also seen (more than one) charged for the felony version of DUI for injuring themseself. However, injured themself or another, my point is this is not a violent crime that should result in the loss of rights to own firearms. I process intakes for PD, SO, CHP, Forest service, State Parks, ect. and I have seen some amazing things.

NightOwl
06-26-2010, 1:01 PM
All these laws need to be done away with. You've either paid your debt to society, in which case you should be a free citizen with all the rights that entails, or you haven't, in which case you should still be locked up. Rights removal of non-incarcerated individuals should be illegal, otherwise they're not actually "rights", are they?

I agree, yet sadly, they're expanding these Rights Removal laws into misdemeanors as well. Domestic Violence, anyone? Don't think it's going to be the only right removal misdemeanor forever.

anthonyca
06-26-2010, 1:14 PM
I have worked there for 24 years, and yes I know the elements to 23153. I have also seen (more than one) charged for the felony version of DUI for injuring themseself. However, injured themself or another, my point is this is not a violent crime that should result in the loss of rights to own firearms. I process intakes for PD, SO, CHP, Forest service, State Parks, ect. and I have seen some amazing things.

Do you work in a jail? Can you start a thread and tell us of some of these "amazing things" you have seen? It never ceases to amaze me how many people here think they have never committed a felony or a crime where they COULD be sentenced to more then one year.

anthonyca
06-26-2010, 1:33 PM
I agree, yet sadly, they're expanding these Rights Removal laws into misdemeanors as well. Domestic Violence, anyone? Don't think it's going to be the only right removal misdemeanor forever.


Exactly, but no one here would commit domestic violence, that would involve beating the crap out of your wife or kid. :rolleyes: No body here would ever go through a bad patch with a women and she would never get a restraining order against them. :rolleyes:*Restraining orders are so hard to get though. :rolleyes:

Lifetime loss of an enumerated right for misdemeanor DV was just the wedge in the door, if we don't kick that wedge out and slam that door now we will loose more rights to the point they will never be regained.*

NightOwl
06-26-2010, 1:39 PM
I believe it needs to go farther than that. The wedge in the door was felonies. The line that must be drawn is the easist place of all to draw it, freedom. If a person commits a crime and goes to jail, when they are released their gun rights (as well as anything else) should be restored at the moment they walk out the door.

I'll avoid ranting further at this time, I've done enough in previous posts related to the subject.

Digital_Boy
06-26-2010, 1:43 PM
Note to self...

DON'T COMMIT ANY FELONIES! :rolleyes:

Just wait until you get popped for felony jaywalking, or felony littering.

I agree with GaryV's opinion: it's an end run around the Constitution to create large numbers of sub-citizens by making a felonies out of trivial and non-violent actions. Time to clean the books in Sacto and DC and hack away the dead wood of these blatantly un-American laws.

norcal01
06-26-2010, 3:40 PM
I have worked there for 24 years, and yes I know the elements to 23153. I have also seen (more than one) charged for the felony version of DUI for injuring themseself. However, injured themself or another, my point is this is not a violent crime that should result in the loss of rights to own firearms. I process intakes for PD, SO, CHP, Forest service, State Parks, ect. and I have seen some amazing things.

Wow, some things never cease to amaze me... I totally agree with you that something like a DUI, felony or misdemeanor, should have nothing to do with gun ownership since they are totally unrelated. That's the problem with all the anti-gun legislation, I have yet to see anything that actually addresses a real problem and does something to effectively deal with it without screwing things up for the rest of us. I was just wondering if I had misunderstood something since I once saw a rookie/probationary officer walk in all proud of himself for his first felony DUI and when the watch commander found out the suspect had only injured himself his reaction had ME running out the door and I wasn't even there for the arrest!

Dr.Lou
06-26-2010, 5:50 PM
CA also has a bunch of "violent" misdemeanors, in addition to Misd. DV that preclude those convicted from owning, possessing firearms for 10 years. Some of these include: assault, battery, resisting arrest, brandishing, etc.

Anchors
06-27-2010, 12:15 AM
Where I work, I had to process a guy on felony drunk driving. Normally, he would have been ok at .06 blood alcohol level, but because he had a fender bender while parking his car and bruised in forehead on the steering wheel, he was booked for felony dui. A crash resulting in injury to anyone, while any alcohol is in your system, results in felony drunk driving, which results in failing dros for gun buys because you are now a felon, (if convicted). This is abused by Ca, just an excuse to remove someones rights to own guns. Granted, the dude screwed up, but loss of gun rights??? How is that justified??

Well, technically he's not fit to own guns from the Feds stand-point. So I doubt the law was intended to deprive people of gun rights.
I think driving while intoxicated at all is completely irresponsible and personally shows a lack of respect for other people on the road (and the law)

Anchors
06-27-2010, 12:24 AM
Unless you have a cite to case law my lawyer and I would disagree.

If you are charged with a misdemeanor it can't be punished with more than 1 year, and therefore does not qualify. Wobbler or not, it doesn't matter. Otherwise 626.9 wouldn't specify as a 10 prohibitive misdemeanor.

Ah I see what you mean, that makes sense.
Well it's better your way anyway! haha.


And I would agree with the person that said you've either paid your debt to society or you haven't. It's like okay you give a guy 3 years for a felony. He get's out and feels he has changed and understand what he did was wrong.
But now he's still labeled as a criminal and has significantly fewer rights than the rest of the world he is supposed to be returning to as a functioning member of society? I think this practice also opens up the door for many of the repeat offenders we see, they are lost and outcast and don't know what else to do with their lives at that point and they stop caring.

Hogxtz
06-27-2010, 6:07 PM
Well, technically he's not fit to own guns from the Feds stand-point. So I doubt the law was intended to deprive people of gun rights.
I think driving while intoxicated at all is completely irresponsible and personally shows a lack of respect for other people on the road (and the law)

True, as I already said. But were do we draw the line? Who gets to decide what violation of law is enough to loose their rights. How about loss of firearms for speeding? Speeding is a irresponsible violation of law too, is it not? Have you ever driven over the speed limit? Driving over the speed limit could place the general public in harms way.

Use your open mind here, people who have behavior problems containing their tempers and have a potential for violence against themselves or others maybe should not have guns. But I have seen many Misd. DV that were questionable, due to an outraged spouse embellishing stories. Or driving under the influence and busted by a rookie in training because normally a duece of .05 blood alcohol would have never gone to jail. My point is there are many time when the crime that was decided is open to the interpretation and comprenhension of the officer, and more times than not, people loose their rights to firearms when maybe they really shouldn't have. And yes, I have seen many innocent folks go to jail as well. Should we be so quick to judge and to justify removing someones right to have firearms? I dont believe in that.

curtisfong
06-27-2010, 6:53 PM
Note to self...

DON'T COMMIT ANY FELONIES! :rolleyes:

I have no doubt you have committed at least one felony (or something that could result in a 1+ year sentence) in your life so far, and I am willing to bet it won't be the last.

The arm of the law isn't nearly as long as the lawbooks.