PDA

View Full Version : Non Violent Felonies?


DPC
04-10-2006, 7:43 PM
What type of felonies don't exclude a person from owning a firearm? Is there a website with info? Or does anyone know first hand.

Thank you

DPC

scootergmc
04-10-2006, 9:38 PM
What type of felonies don't exclude a person from owning a firearm? Is there a website with info? Or does anyone know first hand.

Thank you

DPC

All felonies exclude.

From our brady buddy's website:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=1968&menu=gvr

linuxgunner
04-10-2006, 9:50 PM
All felonies, for life. The only way to fix that is to go back to the court that made the conviction and appeal to them to expunge it (not sure what's the right word here) or get a presidential pardon. I think that for fed. felonies, presidential pardon is the only option.

Martha Stewart cannot touch a gun for the rest of her life, or at least until she gets a pres. pardon (I think she will probably in about 15 years). OJ Simpson can own a gun and could in fact get a CCW if he wanted to.

socalguns
04-10-2006, 9:52 PM
I can't say I care :)
Here's what prohibits you from owning a firearm,
so the answer is whatever is not covered :)

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/

PUBLICATIONS
...
List of Prohibiting Categories, PDF, 17K (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/prohibs.pdf)
List of Prohibiting Misdemeanors, PDF, 26K (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/misdproh.pdf)

grammaton76
04-11-2006, 2:50 AM
I have a friend who had a wobbler reduced from (non-violent) felony to misdemeanor, then expunged and sealed. However, one of the things not relieved from the prohibition list, was handguns.

Because it started off as a felony, would that be a lifelong ban on handguns? He says he heard some kinda noises that the misdemeanor made it only a 10-year prohibition because it was reduced first, but there wasn't anything in writing. I've seen his paperwork, and it neither stated a duration nor did it explicitly say it was perpetual.

Since it talks about possession / being in control of handguns, he just sticks to long guns for the moment, but if it IS just a 10-year thing, that's expiring in the next couple of years.

Anyone have some input on whether it's 10 years or life?

edwardm
04-11-2006, 6:45 AM
That doesn't really make sense.

Probation is set for a fixed period, supervised or unsupervised.

Once probation ends, the conditions of probation no longer apply. That's why they are called "conditions" of probation.

Common conditions of probation include restrictions of possession of firearms, restrictions on the use of alcohol or other intoxicating substances, keep away orders, submission to search at any time without a warrant and so on.

Once probation ends, those conditions evaporate. If you end up with a wobbler as a provisional felony, then probation with no prison time (but not an announced then suspended prison sentence), then seek and receive a 17(b)(3) reduction from the court, that's it. The 1203.4 expungement is inherently useless in the firearms realm, but the 17(b)(3) makes it all good again. If you don't receive a PC17 determination, the terms of probation may be gone, but then you are under new disabilities, like 18 USC 922 and PC 12021.

If you want to see for yourself, look for 118 Cal App 4th 1477 (CA case, 2004) and 339 F.3d 414 (6th Circuit, interpreting CA's 'wobbler' statute in light of 18 USC 922).

Edit:

I just realized something. Your friend is probably talking about the older (pre-1990) version of PC1203.4, which expunged and sealed an offense. That law USED to say "You can't have concealable weapons", which implied long arms are OK. If your friend never had a PC17(b)(3) motion approved, he is in *violation* of 12021 and 18 USC 922 (felon in possession). The 1203.4 does NOT restore any firearm rights. The post-1990 change to 1203.4 is not ex post facto and he has no recourse in that as a defense if such is the case.

He needs an attorney.

Justang
04-11-2006, 7:37 AM
There are some felonies that can be reduced to a misdemeanor after probation. This would allow you to own guns again. It would have to a non-viloent felony though.

edwardm
04-11-2006, 1:14 PM
There are some felonies that can be reduced to a misdemeanor after probation. This would allow you to own guns again. It would have to a non-viloent felony though.

Not trying to be a jerk here.

If a felony can be reduced to a misdemeanor at all (17b3), then it doesn't matter what the nature of the felony was, provided that 12021 et seq. does not create a 10 year, or life, misdemeanor prohibition.

Of course, looking at the CA Penal Code, most violent crimes are straight felonies, but there are some, such as negligent discharge of a firearm, which are wobblers. Even if that wobbler is reduced, you still have a 10 year prohibition (CPC 246.3), but it's not lifetime.

Liberty Rules
04-11-2006, 3:33 PM
Keep in mind that the ATF's current position is that even misdemeanors in CA can result in a lifetime federal prohibition. I know that applies to misdemeanor domestic battery, and here is the tortured reasoning offered by the ATF: CA law provides for a 10 year firearm prohibition upon conviction (that includes plea bargains) for misdemeanor domestic battery. Federal law bans firearm possession for misdemeanor domestic battery. Federal law does allow those firearms rights to be be restored if the convicting court restores them through expungement or several other maneuvers. (Think of expungement as...you've been really, really good since your screw up and you are asking the court to wipe your conviction off the books.) CA's closest statute to expungement does NOT provide for restoration of firearms rights. That is because restoration under CA's laws is supposed to be automatic after 10 years. ATF therefore takes the position that CA's "expungement" statute will not restore firearms rights and that person is banned federally for life. I think that their interpretation is flawed but I can assure you that this is what they are espousing and they will kick a gun check on this basis. I've seen it happen. I know of their position because I spoke to a lawyer in their Los Angeles office about a year ago. I called because an acquaintance ran afoul of this and I was trying to help out by gathering information. The lawyer told me that their bosses were taking this position until a court forced them to do otherwise. She also said that they would appeal it if they lost. And people wonder why we're always pissed at the ATF?

The moral of this story (aside from yet another reason not to live in CA) is do not date anyone who has even the slightest potential of a violent streak. (And don't go slapping someone around on your own initiative, either.) If the cops show up, guaranteed that they will arrest you (the man) and an overbearing ADA will try to force you into pleading out to a misdemeanor. If you plead to the misdemeanor, kiss guns goodbye forever unless the ATF gets overruled in a published decision. I would think a 10 year ban would be enough of an incentive, anyway...but lifetime is really, really screwed.

If this depresses or angers you, don't forget to donate to your favorite firearms rights organization this year.

edwardm
04-11-2006, 3:44 PM
Keep in mind that the ATF's current position is that even misdemeanors in CA can result in a lifetime federal prohibition. I know that applies to misdemeanor domestic battery, and here is the tortured reasoning offered by the ATF: CA law provides for a 10 year firearm prohibition upon conviction (that includes plea bargains) for misdemeanor domestic battery. Federal law bans firearm possession for misdemeanor domestic battery. Federal law does allow those firearms rights to be be restored if the convicting court restores them through expungement or several other maneuvers. (Think of expungement as...you've been really, really good since your screw up and you are asking the court to wipe your conviction off the books.) CA's closest statute to expungement does NOT provide for restoration of firearms rights. That is because restoration under CA's laws is supposed to be automatic after 10 years. ATF therefore takes the position that CA's "expungement" statute will not restore firearms rights and that person is banned federally for life. I think that their interpretation is flawed but I can assure you that this is what they are espousing and they will kick a gun check on this basis. I've seen it happen. I know of their position because I spoke to a lawyer in their Los Angeles office about a year ago. I called because an acquaintance ran afoul of this and I was trying to help out by gathering information. The lawyer told me that their bosses were taking this position until a court forced them to do otherwise. She also said that they would appeal it if they lost. And people wonder why we're always pissed at the ATF?

The moral of this story (aside from yet another reason not to live in CA) is do not date anyone who has even the slightest potential of a violent streak. (And don't go slapping someone around on your own initiative, either.) If the cops show up, guaranteed that they will arrest you (the man) and an overbearing ADA will try to force you into pleading out to a misdemeanor. If you plead to the misdemeanor, kiss guns goodbye forever unless the ATF gets overruled in a published decision. I would think a 10 year ban would be enough of an incentive, anyway...but lifetime is really, really screwed.

If this depresses or angers you, don't forget to donate to your favorite firearms rights organization this year.

Yeah but this isn't really applicable. 17b3 is not an expungement statute. It deals specifically with the oddity in California law called the "wobbler" offense. When a court reduces (technically makes a determination, not a reduction, but the language sticks) to a misdemeanor under 17b3, your rights are immediately restored, as the offense is a misdemeanor for "all purposes" unless otherwise noted, i.e. aside from DV and 10-year misdemeanors. The later expungement under 1203.4 of the penal code has no bearing on firearms rights (either for a misdemeanor expungement or a felony expungement). It more or less only allows you to answer "no" to the "have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony" question on some job applications, with exceptions for public offices, lottery officials, etc.

The CA Supreme Court put it aptly in Meyer when they said 1203.4 affects the punishment for the crime, but PC 17(b) goes to a determination of the very nature of the offense.

Also, the position above is not ATF's. It is spelled out quite clearly in 18 USC 922(g)(9):

"(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime
of domestic violence"

ATF merely said that they would not recognize the CA law that allowed peace officers to escape the 10 year ban in light of the (9) amendment to section 922. Which puts them in line with the Congressional act. For once, this isn't Law-by-ATF.

grammaton76
04-11-2006, 3:53 PM
That doesn't really make sense.

Probation is set for a fixed period, supervised or unsupervised.

Once probation ends, the conditions of probation no longer apply. That's why they are called "conditions" of probation.

Right, his probation was over years ago. The language on his reduction/expungement paperwork was what said he'd been relieved of all provisions of the felony, minus concealable firearms.

...

I just realized something. Your friend is probably talking about the older (pre-1990) version of PC1203.4, which expunged and sealed an offense. That law USED to say "You can't have concealable weapons", which implied long arms are OK. If your friend never had a PC17(b)(3) motion approved, he is in *violation* of 12021 and 18 USC 922 (felon in possession). The 1203.4 does NOT restore any firearm rights. The post-1990 change to 1203.4 is not ex post facto and he has no recourse in that as a defense if such is the case.

He needs an attorney.

I believe he had a motion approved, as he talked about a bunch of court battles he went through for the reduction/expungement. Not to mention, I'm pretty sure the year was '97, because he's at the 8 year point presently. He's DROSed several long guns over the past six months, without getting any red flags.

So, is it looking like somehow he managed to get a 1990-style expungement in 1997, which is Bad (tm)? Or is it more likely that he's completely free and clear by the 1997 version, including handgun ownership?

Naturally, I'm not going to advise him to go pick up pistols or something based on forum posts, but it'd be very interesting to get some information from here for him to take to a lawyer...

Liberty Rules
04-11-2006, 4:34 PM
The later expungement under 1203.4 of the penal code has no bearing on firearms rights (either for a misdemeanor expungement or a felony expungement).

* * *

Also, the position above is not ATF's. It is spelled out quite clearly in 18 USC 922(g)(9):

"(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime
of domestic violence"

ATF merely said that they would not recognize the CA law that allowed peace officers to escape the 10 year ban in light of the (9) amendment to section 922. Which puts them in line with the Congressional act. For once, this isn't Law-by-ATF.

I believe that you misinterpreted my post. My intent was not to discuss wobblers, but to add something else to the discussion. I am aware that it was Section 922 which added misdemeanor domestic as a federal disqualifier. However, if you look further into 922, it allows for those rights to be restored upon expungement (or several other things which I did not go into). The thrust of my post is about the ATF's interpretation of the provision allowing restoration after an expungement by the convicting court. ATF interprets it as not permitting a restoration of rights under CA law because 1203.4 is not a "true expungement". Nor do they recognize the automatic restoration plus a 1203.4. Thus, ATF's position is that misdemeanor domestic in CA can never be "cured" as it can be in other states. That is "law-by-ATF"--it concerns their interpretation. I do not believe that most people are aware of that, hence my post.

edwardm
04-11-2006, 4:52 PM
I believe that you misinterpreted my post. My intent was not to discuss wobblers, but to add something else to the discussion. I am aware that it was Section 922 which added misdemeanor domestic as a federal disqualifier. However, if you look further into 922, it allows for those rights to be restored upon expungement (or several other things which I did not go into). The thrust of my post is about the ATF's interpretation of the provision allowing restoration after an expungement by the convicting court. ATF interprets it as not permitting a restoration of rights under CA law because 1203.4 is not a "true expungement". Nor do they recognize the automatic restoration plus a 1203.4. Thus, ATF's position is that misdemeanor domestic in CA can never be "cured" as it can be in other states. That is "law-by-ATF"--it concerns their interpretation. I do not believe that most people are aware of that, hence my post.

We are confusing two related, but different points. First, 1203.4 for a felony does not restore any firearms rights in CA. In essence, for that part of 1203.4, ATF is giving effect to CA law, not making law by fiat.

The second related point is that 18 USC 922(g)(9) creates a lifetime ban on firearms for any misdemeanor DV conviction. Again, ATF is not making law, Congress is. That ATF does not recognize CA's 10 year ban for DV misdemeanors, followed by a 1203.4 is really ATF following Federal law. CA, in effect, gives the right back, short of an actual expungement. ATF is adhereing to Federal law (which it must, for once)

I see where you are arguing that a restoration of civil rights under 920(a)(20) would then defeat the prohibition of 18 USC 922(g)(9), but that would be improper statutory construction. The specific controls over the general, the later in time controls over the earlier in time, assuming language is otherwise clear and no other intention is found and ambiguity is not present. So the 922(g)(9) prohibition is outside the scope of the possible rehabilitation afforded under 921(a)(20)(B). Just to be complete, Cal Penal Code 17(b)(3) (or 17(b)(1)) puts you under the relief of 921(a)(20)(A), not (B), which was a common question at one point in time.

Anyway, time to troll the 'net for more ammo deals. :)

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam

edwardm
04-11-2006, 4:56 PM
Right, his probation was over years ago. The language on his reduction/expungement paperwork was what said he'd been relieved of all provisions of the felony, minus concealable firearms.

...



I believe he had a motion approved, as he talked about a bunch of court battles he went through for the reduction/expungement. Not to mention, I'm pretty sure the year was '97, because he's at the 8 year point presently. He's DROSed several long guns over the past six months, without getting any red flags.

So, is it looking like somehow he managed to get a 1990-style expungement in 1997, which is Bad (tm)? Or is it more likely that he's completely free and clear by the 1997 version, including handgun ownership?

Naturally, I'm not going to advise him to go pick up pistols or something based on forum posts, but it'd be very interesting to get some information from here for him to take to a lawyer...

That's a tough call. I have run into *numerous* reputable attorneys and judges who are not aware that 17(b)(3) restores rights, and confuse it with 1203.4 (which they know does NOT restore firearm rights).

Most of what you get from courts is form paperwork anyway, so it may have just been outdated papers referencing the old 1203.4/concealable firearms language. But if he got the actual PC 17 reduction, then it doesn't matter. The reduction enables him to own long guns or handguns, and has since 1963 or so (when 17(b)(3) was added to the penal code). Of course the mere fact that CalDOJ actually updated his record to reflect reality stuns me.

grammaton76
04-11-2006, 5:33 PM
That's a tough call. I have run into *numerous* reputable attorneys and judges who are not aware that 17(b)(3) restores rights, and confuse it with 1203.4 (which they know does NOT restore firearm rights).

Most of what you get from courts is form paperwork anyway, so it may have just been outdated papers referencing the old 1203.4/concealable firearms language. But if he got the actual PC 17 reduction, then it doesn't matter. The reduction enables him to own long guns or handguns, and has since 1963 or so (when 17(b)(3) was added to the penal code). Of course the mere fact that CalDOJ actually updated his record to reflect reality stuns me.

Ah, so usually what happens then, is that although the prohibition's reduced and the guy's legally allowed to own firearms, he still comes up as a prohibited armed person?

Very interesting, as he's run at least three long-gun DROS's this year, not even a hiccup or a questioning call from the DOJ. Does anyone know if the DROS system cares about the difference between handgun and long gun? If not, it would perhaps give credence to the theory that he's completely clear but just doesn't know it yet.

I'll have him check the form number he's got; it would be interesting to know which one it is.

Liberty Rules
04-11-2006, 6:04 PM
I see where you are arguing that a restoration of civil rights under 920(a)(20) would then defeat the prohibition of 18 USC 922(g)(9), but that would be improper statutory construction. The specific controls over the general, the later in time controls over the earlier in time, assuming language is otherwise clear and no other intention is found and ambiguity is not present. So the 922(g)(9) prohibition is outside the scope of the possible rehabilitation afforded under 921(a)(20)(B). Just to be complete, Cal Penal Code 17(b)(3) (or 17(b)(1)) puts you under the relief of 921(a)(20)(A), not (B), which was a common question at one point in time.

My apologies to all if edwardm and I are engaging in too much code slinging here. :) I was trying not to get too technical and was discussing the issue without citing to each and every code section.

With that said, let me complete the alphabet soup. The argument that the specific applies over the general is not an issue here. I was not referring to the "general" in 921(a)(20)(A) nor (B). I was referring to the specific, in Section 921(a)(33)(B)(ii). That provision expressly provides that a person shall not be considered to be convicted of a MCDV if "the conviction has been expunged, 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)...."

My comments went to the ATF/US Attnys intepretation that a Californian can never avail themselves of the cited provisions. Their stated view is that no CA law satisfies the "expunged, set aside...civil rights restored" language. If you live in other states, you can avail yourself of that provision, but not CA according to the ATF/US Attny. Hopefully edwardm and I haven't bored you to death.

BTW, here is the relevant text of 921(a)(33)(B)(ii):
33)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the term
''misdemeanor crime of domestic violence'' means an offense that -
* * *[text omitted] * * *
(B)(ii) 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.

I'm going to get back to work now. And don't beat your wives or girlfriends. :D

edwardm
04-11-2006, 7:28 PM
Ah, so usually what happens then, is that although the prohibition's reduced and the guy's legally allowed to own firearms, he still comes up as a prohibited armed person?

Very interesting, as he's run at least three long-gun DROS's this year, not even a hiccup or a questioning call from the DOJ. Does anyone know if the DROS system cares about the difference between handgun and long gun? If not, it would perhaps give credence to the theory that he's completely clear but just doesn't know it yet.

I'll have him check the form number he's got; it would be interesting to know which one it is.

CalDOJ is notorious (from what I'm told by Don Kilmer and others) for not updating records to reflect reality. Legally you are OK, on paper, you're not. Fortunately, the courts care about the legal reality, not some erroneous record in a database in Sacramento.

My personal advice is to carry around a court-certified copy of whatever paperwork you have, i.e. 17(b)(3) ruling, for example.

edwardm
04-11-2006, 7:34 PM
My apologies to all if edwardm and I are engaging in too much code slinging here. :) I was trying not to get too technical and was discussing the issue without citing to each and every code section.

With that said, let me complete the alphabet soup. The argument that the specific applies over the general is not an issue here. I was not referring to the "general" in 921(a)(20)(A) nor (B). I was referring to the specific, in Section 921(a)(33)(B)(ii). That provision expressly provides that a person shall not be considered to be convicted of a MCDV if "the conviction has been expunged, 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)...."

My comments went to the ATF/US Attnys intepretation that a Californian can never avail themselves of the cited provisions. Their stated view is that no CA law satisfies the "expunged, set aside...civil rights restored" language. If you live in other states, you can avail yourself of that provision, but not CA according to the ATF/US Attny. Hopefully edwardm and I haven't bored you to death.

BTW, here is the relevant text of 921(a)(33)(B)(ii):
33)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the term
''misdemeanor crime of domestic violence'' means an offense that -
* * *[text omitted] * * *
(B)(ii) 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.

I'm going to get back to work now. And don't beat your wives or girlfriends. :D

Correct. But ATF is not making a rule here. The ATF counsel go by California court interpretation of 1203.4. California does not take away your right to vote upon conviction, and technically does not take away your right to sit on a jury (though you can be dismissed without cause if you are a felon). Therefore, the state never actually restores civil rights, and that is part of the touchstone language you cited. I can see your argument that ATF is making the call here, but looking at the caselaw, I'm convinced they are making the call based on CA court interpretation of our own laws.

And, to make matters worse, if you do get a determination that your wobbler is a misdemeanor, you can't apply for a gubernatorial pardon in CA. It only applies to those who suffer felonies. And the "all purposes" language of PC 17(b) nullifies the attempt at a pardon.

It is screwed up. Really screwed up. That's why I want to move to Montana in the next couple of years, at the latest. I'll trade beaches and warmth for some freedom from the arbitrary and capricious.

xrMike
10-09-2007, 9:08 AM
<comment removed; wrong thread; d'oh!>

bwiese
10-09-2007, 10:10 AM
I believe felony violations of Sherman Antitrust Act do not incur firearms restrictions.

Big ol' convicted CEOs need their duck guns.

CCWFacts
10-09-2007, 10:31 AM
What type of felonies don't exclude a person from owning a firearm? Is there a website with info? Or does anyone know first hand.

100%. Steal an avocado (one single avocado) in California and you can be excluded for life. For example.

I personally think that too many things, especially non-violent or victimless acts, are prosecutable as felonies these days, and we are ending up with an underclass of millions of felons. That should be reformed, and also non-violent felons should have some more reasonable process for getting their rights (guns, voting, serving in office, employment equality) restored.

Mssr. Eleganté
10-09-2007, 10:47 AM
ZOMBIE THREAD! Aim for the head!

I believe felony violations of Sherman Antitrust Act do not incur firearms restrictions.

Big ol' convicted CEOs need their duck guns.

Bill's right.

§ 921. Definitions (a)(20) The term "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" does not include --

(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or

(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.

Could this be Martha Stewart's ticket to gun ownership? :D Maybe not. I believe if she had been convicted of insider trading then she could still own guns. But since she was conviceted of lying about insider trading she is out of luck.

CCWFacts
10-09-2007, 10:55 AM
Wow, fascinating about the anti-trust act. I had no idea. They should go through and add provisions for a lot of other non-violent crimes, in my opinion, but whatever...

Martha Stewart: she was never prosecuted for insider trading. It was perjury. She's DQed forever. I do expect she'll eventually get a pardon.

Mssr. Eleganté
10-09-2007, 11:02 AM
Wow, fascinating about the anti-trust act. I had no idea. They should go through and add provisions for a lot of other non-violent crimes, in my opinion, but whatever...

Just to clarify, the "anti-trust" exemption only applies on the Federal level. If you are convicted of a felony for violating the Sherman Anti Trust Act then you are still prohibited from owning firearms in California because of the felony.

gordoe
10-09-2007, 3:09 PM
I have a friend that want to buy a gun, but when he was 18 he was charged with MISDEMEANOR PETTY THEFT, for charging friends half price and throwing in extra stuff at a department store, would that exclude you from being a Gun Owner?

odysseus
10-09-2007, 3:33 PM
Big ol' convicted CEOs need their duck guns.

You say this, like something is wrong with that. :D

jaymz
10-09-2007, 5:36 PM
Has anybody noticed that this was a really old thread? Anyway, I briefly skimmed through the PC to see what a prohibiting felony is, and it seems that there is a lot of leeway in getting your right to possess a firearm back. I just don't have the time right now to bounce back and forth to all of the other code listed in this one. I was looking at 12021 (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12020.php) if anyone is interested.

Richie Rich
10-09-2007, 8:26 PM
I have a friend that want to buy a gun, but when he was 18 he was charged with MISDEMEANOR PETTY THEFT, for charging friends half price and throwing in extra stuff at a department store, would that exclude you from being a Gun Owner?

YAY!!! Zombie thread...

No. If that is what he was charged for (not plead down from felony theft) and nothing in the conditions of his probation (if he is still on it) mentions it then he is good to go.

I am almost 100% sure of this, unless things have changed in the last 15 years. I know someone very well who did the exact same thing.