PDA

View Full Version : Laws prohibiting possession questions


sdclouthier
12-31-2010, 8:39 PM
Over 20 years ago I was charged with a 273.5 pc and as many other people have experienced, my Public pretender did nothing to help me. I was charged with a Misd. and had a few years of probation. This was my first offence ever. I recently filed paper work with the Sac. CA. court to "set aside" my conviction and paid $120 for the process. The response I received back is a bit confusing, but I think I get the jist of it. Even though my request was granted, my priviledges are NOT re-instated. From what I gather, the only benefit I get now is that I do not have to mention my conviction when applying for a job, unless directly asked. This still does me no good. My job requires that I be in possession of shot guns. Just recently I heard from a police officer that the law that is preventing me from owning or possessing firearms under this conviction was passed AFTER my conviction. Meaning...if I was convicted in 1989 and the law passed in the early 90's, I should be able to purchase or be in possession. Does any one know of this law I'm talking about? Is it true I'm being denied unlawfully? Is there anyone who can help me? Or am I just F'd like so many other people out there.

Thanks,

Sean

anthonyca
12-31-2010, 9:04 PM
The federal law is called the lautenberg amendment. Look it up or search here. It was passed in 1996 and applied retroactively. It scooped up many police and military also, I was in the Army when it came in and saw a lot of guys loose their career. The ATF does not recognize California expungement because they can still use the charge against you as a prior in a future arrest. The ATF used to recognize California expungement then changed their mind.

Many people who get arrested for the federal lifetime ban don't even know they are prohibited. The original charge could be so minor that they were never put in jail at all, just asked to leave their own house then charged later by the DA and given no jail time after a plea.

All the wrong people are the ones fighting this BS federal felony. Skioen, Chester Ect. And yes, it is a FELONY with up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 fine for even touching one round of ammo or having it in your possesion. Don't loan you car to a friend who leaves his ammo behind. There have been some crazy prosocutions for this, one guy was contacted by fish and game and later charged by the feds. There are more. This is one of the most BS, unconstitutional, retroactive punishments around, but it is still around, and it doesn't look like it is going away.

There are also some people who are caught up in this that don't meet the federal description of who is an intimate partner but they meet the state decryption and you can't get a straight answer from any agency. The Hayes case was about him being arrested for simple battery but the victim was actually his wife, so the supreme court ruled that he met the federal definition even though his state did not charge him under a domestic violence charge. So many people who passed department background and military background checks a few years ago by saying that they were not charged for DV are being looked at more closely as the charge is not important, the victims relationship is, according to the supreme court.

You would be in better luck if you were a felon actually but that is a whole other post.

jtmkinsd
12-31-2010, 9:10 PM
Over 20 years ago I was charged with a 273.5 pc and as many other people have experienced, my Public pretender did nothing to help me. I was charged with a Misd. and had a few years of probation. This was my first offence ever. I recently filed paper work with the Sac. CA. court to "set aside" my conviction and paid $120 for the process. The response I received back is a bit confusing, but I think I get the jist of it. Even though my request was granted, my priviledges are NOT re-instated. From what I gather, the only benefit I get now is that I do not have to mention my conviction when applying for a job, unless directly asked. This still does me no good. My job requires that I be in possession of shot guns. Just recently I heard from a police officer that the law that is preventing me from owning or possessing firearms under this conviction was passed AFTER my conviction. Meaning...if I was convicted in 1989 and the law passed in the early 90's, I should be able to purchase or be in possession. Does any one know of this law I'm talking about? Is it true I'm being denied unlawfully? Is there anyone who can help me? Or am I just F'd like so many other people out there.

Thanks,

Sean

There are two parts to answer your question. 1st part, CA bans you from owning or possessing firearms for 10 years after date of conviction for this type of offense. BUT as stated, the conviction was well before the State law was passed...so don't concern yourself with that one. 2nd part, Federal law (the Lautenberg Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban)) states if you have ever been convicted of an offense such as yours, you may not own or possess firearms.

You may have options to get your rights restored.

Go to the CGF website (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/hotline) or call the hotline: (800) 556-2109

sdclouthier
12-31-2010, 9:19 PM
Isn't it against the law to retroactively apply punishment for crimes committed prior to new laws? Just think, if some bone head made a new law saying that anyone who has ever been convicted of a DUI will never be able to drive again...EVER. Is it coming to that? If I had actually hit my wife, then maybe...maybe I'd understand to some degree my situation, but I didn't...not one punch. In fact...she hit me! But I'm to suffer. Don't these idiots know that even though bullets travel faster, arrows are much more quiet?... LOL. BTW... you mentioned ammo...am I not allowed to be in possession of ammo either?

jtmkinsd
12-31-2010, 9:55 PM
Isn't it against the law to retroactively apply punishment for crimes committed prior to new laws? Just think, if some bone head made a new law saying that anyone who has ever been convicted of a DUI will never be able to drive again...EVER. Is it coming to that? If I had actually hit my wife, then maybe...maybe I'd understand to some degree my situation, but I didn't...not one punch. In fact...she hit me! But I'm to suffer. Don't these idiots know that even though bullets travel faster, arrows are much more quiet?... LOL. BTW... you mentioned ammo...am I not allowed to be in possession of ammo either?

Being a "prohibited person" you are banned from possessing ammo as well...and not just complete rounds...but cartridge cases, primers, powder, bullets...if you have any one of these things in your possession...it's a trip to the pokie.

As to retroactively applying punishment...yes, it is unconstitutional to make a law ex post facto...but I'm not aware of any litigation specifically challenging the Laughtenberg Amendment.

sdclouthier
01-01-2011, 5:37 AM
Thanks to everyone who replied. This really cleared up a lot of things I was unsure of. Now, I'm a bit concerned for my job. Unfortunately, ammo is another item which I handle for my job, but now seems like this will be impossible. I still can't believe how the gov'mt could do this. I guess my hunting days are over. Looks like I'll be contacting CGF to see what can be done. If all else fails...might move to Canada! eh!!!

negolien
01-01-2011, 6:34 AM
There are two parts to answer your question. 1st part, CA bans you from owning or possessing firearms for 10 years after date of conviction for this type of offense. BUT as stated, the conviction was well before the State law was passed...so don't concern yourself with that one. 2nd part, Federal law (the Lautenberg Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban)) states if you have ever been convicted of an offense such as yours, you may not own or possess firearms.

You may have options to get your rights restored.

Go to the CGF website (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/hotline) or call the hotline: (800) 556-2109

:iagree::inquis::dots::threadjacked:

anthonyca
01-01-2011, 12:49 PM
Being a "prohibited person" you are banned from possessing ammo as well...and not just complete rounds...but cartridge cases, primers, powder, bullets...if you have any one of these things in your possession...it's a trip to the pokie.

As to retroactively applying punishment...yes, it is unconstitutional to make a law ex post facto...but I'm not aware of any litigation specifically challenging the Laughtenberg Amendment.

The past cases challenging the ex post facto part of lautenberg ( mostly police officers) were thrown out because the courts ruled that loosing your gun rights was not a punishment, and at the time they considered the 2nd amendment a collective right.

jtmkinsd
01-01-2011, 1:23 PM
The past cases challenging the ex post facto part of lautenberg ( mostly police officers) were thrown out because the courts ruled that loosing your gun rights was not a punishment, and at the time they considered the 2nd amendment a collective right.

Well...that makes sense :nuts:

sdclouthier
01-01-2011, 5:29 PM
Sorry, does that mean possible good news for me, or I may not have a chance in hell. I'm contacting CGF this week for help if anyone thinks it might actually make a change. BTW...how can anyone actually believe that losing rights is not punishment? It's the same as losing your "right" to drive. It's punishment for not paying your fine...owing child support...etc. I thought that this was a "free" country...the right to do most anything. Why is it always the "right" to do something. Still comes out the same... the govmnt takes your "rights", you are no longer free.