PDA

View Full Version : Ammo possession illegal for misdemeanor DV convicts?


SteveH
06-02-2011, 11:20 AM
If someone has multiple prior convictions for misdemeanor domestic violence, and is currently in possession of meth and ammo for a rifle and handgun both, is the ammo possession illegal?

If your answer is yes, which california penal code section is he in violation of?

He's not a convicted felon.
He's not a narcotics addict.
He's not a documented gang member.
He is not under a current restraining order.

What says the experts?

hawk1
06-02-2011, 11:44 AM
Not an 'expert' but, for Federal yes. Still looking at state.


18 U.S.C. 922 : US Code - Section 922: Unlawful acts

18 usc 922(g),(8),(9)

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922




Edit: Found this link from CD Michel on Gun Possession and Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence Convictions in California
Might find something you need in there.
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Gun-Possession-and-MCDV-Convictions-in-California-2.pdf

Cuahitl
06-02-2011, 12:18 PM
Yes PC12316(B)(1)

Glock22Fan
06-02-2011, 12:46 PM
Yes PC12316(B)(1)

here (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12316.html)


(b) (1) No person prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm
under Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103
of the Welfare and Institutions Code shall own, possess, or have
under his or her custody or control, any ammunition or reloaded
ammunition.

stix213
06-02-2011, 12:55 PM
If someone has multiple prior convictions for misdemeanor domestic violence, and is currently in possession of meth and ammo for a rifle and handgun both, is the ammo possession illegal?

If your answer is yes, which california penal code section is he in violation of?

He's not a convicted felon.
He's not a narcotics addict.
He's not a documented gang member.
He is not under a current restraining order.

What says the experts?

How are both the bolded statements true?

SteveH
06-02-2011, 1:34 PM
How are both the bolded statements true?

1. methamphetamine is a stimulant, not a narcotic.
2. simple possession does not establish addiction.

Bigtime1
06-02-2011, 2:07 PM
1. methamphetamine is a stimulant, not a narcotic.
2. simple possession does not establish addiction.


What kind of behavior are you trying to justify?

Quser.619
06-02-2011, 2:18 PM
yes possession of Meth is Federal law, combined w/ previous convictions of DV - thus possibly making him a prohibited person. Prohibited people cannot have ammo.

SteveH
06-02-2011, 2:22 PM
What kind of behavior are you trying to justify?

Don't leap to conclusions. you are way out of your lane. I train police officers and this question is one that had many stumped recently. Calguns as a whole is very knowledgable about such things so I thought i would ask here. So that I might give correct guidance in the future.

Ironic that someone here would imply i am a wife beating tweeker with an ammo collection.

scarville
06-02-2011, 2:23 PM
How are both the bolded statements true?
Methamphetamine is not a narcotic (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/narcotic). It is, however, a Schedule II drug, meaning it has a high abuse risk, but also government approved medical uses.

Don't know if that make any difference.

Ironic that someone here would imply i am a wife beating tweeker with an ammo collection.
Welcome to Calguns ... :rolleyes:

SteveH
06-02-2011, 2:58 PM
I come here when i want expert advise on firearms related laws. I apreciate those who took the time to try to answer the question. Thanks.

jwb28
06-02-2011, 3:10 PM
Yea, that jumping to conclusions thing is a *****. I usually don't post in other peoples tit for tat but. Speaking for myself I never thought you were a wife beating tweaker with some ammo. Your post sounded like you wanted to nail someone annon. or maybe trying to give said tweaker some advice.
I don't think anyone her accused you of anything Steve.

hawk1
06-03-2011, 9:25 AM
How about getting back to what the OP asked for?...

Glock22Fan
06-03-2011, 10:36 AM
How about getting back to what the OP asked for?...


What's wrong with the answers already given in the first few posts?

Frankly, if the hypotherical tweaker isn't banned, he darned well ought to be :D

However, if this is for the sake of educating cops on what might, or might not, stick, I would have thought that the legal opinion of the relevant D.A. in the cops' jurisdiction would carry a lot more weight than ours.

After all, there's no point in the cop arresting someone if the D.A. won't prosecute, and every point if they will.

hawk1
06-03-2011, 12:25 PM
What's wrong with the answers already given in the first few posts?

Frankly, if the hypotherical tweaker isn't banned, he darned well ought to be :D

However, if this is for the sake of educating cops on what might, or might not, stick, I would have thought that the legal opinion of the relevant D.A. in the cops' jurisdiction would carry a lot more weight than ours.

After all, there's no point in the cop arresting someone if the D.A. won't prosecute, and every point if they will.

Nothing at all and wasn't pointed at you.
Posts 5 though 12 (not 11) that want to argue something else are not needed, but that's what happens when drugs are discussed.

SteveH
06-03-2011, 1:19 PM
What's wrong with the answers already given in the first few posts?

Frankly, if the hypotherical tweaker isn't banned, he darned well ought to be :D

However, if this is for the sake of educating cops on what might, or might not, stick, I would have thought that the legal opinion of the relevant D.A. in the cops' jurisdiction would carry a lot more weight than ours.

After all, there's no point in the cop arresting someone if the D.A. won't prosecute, and every point if they will.

In my experiance young Deputy DA's are often even more ignorant of rarely used sections of law than street cops. If the officer doesnt request prosecution for a specific section its very unlikely the DA will add any additional charges at arraignment.

For whatever reason the DA's dont read the report and say, hey the officer overlooked CPC XYZ, i should file that too. They just go with the booking charges.

scootergmc
06-03-2011, 2:07 PM
I come here when i want expert advise on firearms related laws. I apreciate those who took the time to try to answer the question. Thanks.

So are you satisfied with the answers? The answer is yes. Meth is a non-factor in relation to your question unless it's the reason for the initial contact with the offender.

12316(b)(1) PC will refer you to 12021 PC, of which 12021(c)(1) PC (relevant DV offenses) would apply.

stix213
06-03-2011, 3:10 PM
Nothing at all and wasn't pointed at you.
Posts 5 though 12 (not 11) that want to argue something else are not needed, but that's what happens when drugs are discussed.

I wasn't arguing anything in post 5. Posts 2 through 4 correctly answered the question so I was curious how someone could be in possession of meth (which usually means a user of meth) and not be a narcotics addict. I apparently am not into drugs enough to realize that meth isn't a narcotic.

Glock22Fan
06-03-2011, 3:44 PM
Nothing at all and wasn't pointed at you.
Posts 5 though 12 (not 11) that want to argue something else are not needed, but that's what happens when drugs are discussed.

I guess it is up to Kestryl, but I see no reason why threads should not wander off once the original query has been answered.

I am somewhat worried though by Steve's post suggesting that young D.A.'s have to be trained by cops so that they know what is, and isn't, prosecutable. How much do attorneys pay for their education, compared to cops?

Heiko
06-04-2011, 12:05 AM
I guess it is up to Kestryl, but I see no reason why threads should not wander off once the original query has been answered.

I am somewhat worried though by Steve's post suggesting that young D.A.'s have to be trained by cops so that they know what is, and isn't, prosecutable. How much do attorneys pay for their education, compared to cops?

I think he is making a gross generalization. LA County has about 1200 Deputy DAs and I doubt even the young ones always just go with what the officer submits. Likewise, as a cop you want to arrest and book for the most serious charges possible. Better a felony arrest than a misdemeanor, right? DAs and cops know that so there isn't always this automatic process you are afraid of. If it were such that the cops trained the DA how to file, every shoplifter would be charged with felony commercial burglary and every time two or more people commit a crime together they'd be charged with a conspiracy. This is, of course, in general. :rolleyes:

MP301
06-04-2011, 10:49 AM
Sometimes the DAs will add to the charges, but in most cases the arresting officer will charge with everything they can think of to give bargaining room to the DA.

The last stats for my county, the conviction rate of the DAs office was around 50-60 percent whereas the average for most DAs in CA is in the 90 percentile. This is because my local DA will take things to trial that they shouldnt and most other DAs wont push a likely loser case. Plus, my DA adds additional charges that the arresting officer didnt arrest for.
I have seen a misdemeanor arrest turn into a double felony because the DA made every stretch they could from the Sheriff's report.

Unfortunately, because our weaksauce CA DOJ cant seem to lead the 58 DAs in what is and isnt, a lot depends on the Jurisdiction of where the offense (real or imagined) occurs. We are all well aware that something doesnt have to be illegal to get arrested and prosecuted for it.

On that note, I would be surprised if LE didnt arrest someone with ammo that was prohibited by DV from possessing a gun whether it was technicalluy legal or not.