PDA

View Full Version : Misdemeanor assault & battery non domestic gun ban


SoCalRepo
12-08-2012, 6:32 PM
In California if you have misdemeanor assault or battery you have a automatic 10 year gun ban. My first question is if you were charged with 2 counts of battery on one case is it a 10 year ban or each charge... Would that mean your banned for 20 years or 10 because it was one case? My other question... All states enforce the domestic violence gun ban but what about the violent misdemeanor crimes that are not domestic... Do other states ban you for non domestic misdemeanor crimes or just California? If so which states...

ke6guj
12-08-2012, 6:52 PM
29805. Except as provided in Section 29855 or subdivision (a) of
Section 29800, any person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor
violation of Section 71, 76, 136.1, 136.5, or 140, subdivision (d) of
Section 148, Section 171b, paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of
Section 171c, 171d, 186.28, 240, 241, 242, 243, 243.4, 244.5, 245,
245.5, 246.3, 247, 273.5, 273.6, 417, 417.6, 422, 626.9, 646.9, or
830.95, subdivision (a) of former Section 12100, as that section read
at any time from when it was enacted by Section 3 of Chapter 1386 of
the Statutes of 1988 to when it was repealed by Section 18 of
Chapter 23 of the Statutes of 1994, Section 17500, 17510, 25300,
25800, 30315, or 32625, subdivision (b) or (d) of Section 26100, or
Section 27510, or Section 8100, 8101, or 8103 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code, any firearm-related offense pursuant to Sections
871.5 and 1001.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or of the
conduct punished in subdivision (c) of Section 27590, and who, within
10 years of the conviction, owns, purchases, receives, or has in
possession or under custody or control, any firearm is guilty of a
public offense, which shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county
jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison, by a fine not
exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment
and fine. The court, on forms prescribed by the Department of
Justice, shall notify the department of persons subject to this
section. However, the prohibition in this section may be reduced,
eliminated, or conditioned as provided in Section 29855 or 29860.

Moonshine
12-08-2012, 10:58 PM
I'm sorry if I offend you but someone with two counts of assault on a single case has no business acquiring a firearm in my opinion.

alfred1222
12-08-2012, 11:10 PM
I'm sorry if I offend you but someone with two counts of assault on a single case has no business acquiring a firearm in my opinion.

Ya so some dumba** fight a 19 year old kid gets into should equal a lifetime ban on firearms?? You should run for state congress I hear they are looking for people like you

Mstrty
12-08-2012, 11:43 PM
There should be no firearm prohibitions outside of incarceration. the right to bare arms is something we are all born with. It is not a privilege. It is a RIGHT. If society doesnt trust someone with a gun, why would anyone believe it to be prudent to let them out to walk among us and our children. Once out of jail, rights restored. Why are we releasing people to walk among us who we have deemed untrustworthy to have a gun. Why is this person on my roadways in my stores and walking down my street?

In a free country, guns are what you buy at hardware stores. No paperwork, no questions, just cash. In to tyrannical society our free will is removed and we are required to ask for permission, only then when granted are we allowed to enjoy these rights. Which one are we?

I could go on and on. I apologize for the thread drift.

The 10 years is from your last conviction.

Moonshine
12-08-2012, 11:56 PM
Sorry if I ruffled your feathers but I happen to be a victim of assault and battery and was nearly killed with a blunt weapon (not sure what it was because I was struck in the back of the head) in a park while I was taking a walk. The only thing that saved my life was other people fortunately walking by and causing my attacker to flee. My attacker was never caught. I do agree that school yard fights are one thing and things should be looked at on a case by case basis.

Safety1st
12-09-2012, 12:32 AM
There should be no firearm prohibitions outside of incarceration. the right to bare arms is something we are all born with. It is not a privilege. It is a RIGHT. If society doesnt trust someone with a gun, why would anyone believe it to be prudent to let them out to walk among us and our children. Once out of jail, rights restored. Why are we releasing people to walk among us who we have deemed untrustworthy to have a gun. Why is this person on my roadways in my stores and walking down my street?

In a free country, guns are what you buy at hardware stores. No paperwork, no questions, just cash. In to tyrannical society our free will is removed and we are required to ask for permission, only then when granted are we allowed to enjoy these rights. Which one are we?

Your world sounds way too scary. I'd much rather have our elected officials decide whats best for us. Its for the children.

flyingcaveman
12-09-2012, 12:41 PM
Okay, in your case that would be legitimate.
In my opinion, two counts of assault and battery more than likely means you got the **** kicked out of you in the parking lot by two bouncers. One minute your having a good time then some chick gets offended by one of your jokes and throws her drink on you so you call her a stupid *****. So you get asked to leave, and you are willing to leave but the bouncer's, who unknown to you, are really a bunch of 'roided out cops moonlighting as 'security guards' escalate the situation by getting in your face and blocking the exit at the same time. So, you try to shove your way out and if you touch anybody they'll consider that battery. One way or another they are going to arrest you. The security guard will try to handcuff you, and of course this is illegal, so you have the right to resist an unlawful arrest, but it doesn't matter anyway because the real cops are there now anyway. So they'll tack on a drunk in public even though it was on private property and you might as well get a resisting arrest charge too, even though the original arrest was unlawful. Something is wrong with the system when the charge is the same whether somebody picked a fight with you or you were going around breaking bottles on people's heads.

Meplat
12-09-2012, 1:12 PM
I'm sorry if I offend you but someone with two counts of assault on a single case has no business acquiring a firearm in my opinion.

It's a good thing opinions are like @$$holes.

Meplat
12-09-2012, 1:15 PM
Your world sounds way too scary. I'd much rather have our elected officials decide whats best for us. Its for the children.

Freedom is not for cowards.

Vladimir
12-09-2012, 1:40 PM
Sorry if I ruffled your feathers but I happen to be a victim of assault and battery and was nearly killed with a blunt weapon (not sure what it was because I was struck in the back of the head) in a park while I was taking a walk. The only thing that saved my life was other people fortunately walking by and causing my attacker to flee. My attacker was never caught. I do agree that school yard fights are one thing and things should be looked at on a case by case basis.

thats the same mentality the antis have. because its happened to individual scenarios, we should just restrict it for everyone.

I wrestled with my dad in a huge arguement, should I not be owning the guns I have? Magnificent.

Moonshine
12-09-2012, 2:12 PM
Well I guess you guys will be happy to know then that my attacker, who was not arrested can still buy a gun. Personally I'm not comfortable with someone who attacks people in parks while on their way to their vehicle being able to buy guns... but I also happen to be equally uncomfortable with "assault weapon bans" that turn law abiding citizens into felons because of cosmetic features on their lawfully acquired firearm.

I guess I tend to take things on a case by case basis and just because I'm pro 2nd amendment doesn't mean I don't believe every person should have a gun. I'm glad we at least live in a country where we can disagree and have different opinions.

donny douchebag
12-09-2012, 2:25 PM
You can be pro 2A and still not believe every person can own a gun. Or you can be a gun nut who feels anyone can own anything at anytime. The choice is yours.

tozan
12-09-2012, 2:26 PM
Personally I'm not comfortable with someone who attacks people in parks while on their way to their vehicle being able to buy guns...

And said attacker is going to worry about not being able to buy a gun from a dealer? Or might they break the law and buy it off the street anyway???

I agree with you in a perfect world I would prefer they could not buy a gun either but as reality sets in, it is impossible to stop them either way... It becomes just another useless law that does nothing of real value...

Moonshine
12-09-2012, 2:40 PM
My best guess is that they were after my wallet but who knows. If they did have a gun and wanted my wallet I would have given it to them... Woulda been a hell of a lot less painful then getting clocked in the back of the head by some object.. It was probably a skateboard or other object that would be inconspicuous in public.

tcrpe
12-09-2012, 2:42 PM
I'm pro 2nd Amendment, and yet believe that there are millions that shouldn't have access to firearms.

Dantedamean
12-09-2012, 9:52 PM
I'm pro 2nd Amendment, and yet believe that there are millions that shouldn't have access to firearms.

Eh, I don't think they need to keep guns put of people's hands, they just need to lower the standards for the death penalty.

Anchors
12-09-2012, 10:08 PM
I'm sorry if I offend you but someone with two counts of assault on a single case has no business acquiring a firearm in my opinion.

Oh really? Because the justice system is infallible :rolleyes:

Ya so some dumba** fight a 19 year old kid gets into should equal a lifetime ban on firearms?? You should run for state congress I hear they are looking for people like you

^

There should be no firearm prohibitions outside of incarceration. the right to bare arms is something we are all born with. It is not a privilege. It is a RIGHT. If society doesnt trust someone with a gun, why would anyone believe it to be prudent to let them out to walk among us and our children. Once out of jail, rights restored. Why are we releasing people to walk among us who we have deemed untrustworthy to have a gun. Why is this person on my roadways in my stores and walking down my street?

In a free country, guns are what you buy at hardware stores. No paperwork, no questions, just cash. In to tyrannical society our free will is removed and we are required to ask for permission, only then when granted are we allowed to enjoy these rights. Which one are we?

I could go on and on. I apologize for the thread drift.

The 10 years is from your last conviction.

I completely agree with you. Too dangerous to own a gun? Too dangerous to be walking around in society then.

Sorry if I ruffled your feathers but I happen to be a victim of assault and battery and was nearly killed with a blunt weapon (not sure what it was because I was struck in the back of the head) in a park while I was taking a walk. The only thing that saved my life was other people fortunately walking by and causing my attacker to flee. My attacker was never caught. I do agree that school yard fights are one thing and things should be looked at on a case by case basis.

No offense, but so what?
I've been the victim of violent crime too as have many other people.
I'm not going to project a personal situation on society as a whole and apply it broadly across a wide spectrum of people.

Well I guess you guys will be happy to know then that my attacker, who was not arrested can still buy a gun. Personally I'm not comfortable with someone who attacks people in parks while on their way to their vehicle being able to buy guns... but I also happen to be equally uncomfortable with "assault weapon bans" that turn law abiding citizens into felons because of cosmetic features on their lawfully acquired firearm.

I guess I tend to take things on a case by case basis and just because I'm pro 2nd amendment doesn't mean I don't believe every person should have a gun. I'm glad we at least live in a country where we can disagree and have different opinions.

That is just the thing. That person is going to buy a gun either way. Plus, he assaulted you with a blunt object. Is he somehow less dangerous without a gun? A gun isn't a magic tool that makes hurting someone all that much easier, practically speaking and especially in today's world with forensic science. Also, I'm pretty sure stab wound and severe bludgeoning victims have higher mortality rates than GSW victims.

You really think gangbangers in L.A. who do way worse stuff than armed robbery in a park (yes, there are much worse things) are really concerned about breaking a petty gun law?
So you're saying these guys that force female immigrants into sex slavery, hack people up with machetes, and kill kids in broad daylight are worried about buying a gun without going through a background check?
lol.

Given a choice, I would rather make it easier for you to get a gun than harder for him. If that makes sense? Because he will get one either way or continue to harm people either way. I would rather have you (the good guy) armed to defend yourself.

SgtDinosaur
12-10-2012, 9:41 AM
Well I guess you guys will be happy to know then that my attacker, who was not arrested can still buy a gun. Personally I'm not comfortable with someone who attacks people in parks while on their way to their vehicle being able to buy guns... but I also happen to be equally uncomfortable with "assault weapon bans" that turn law abiding citizens into felons because of cosmetic features on their lawfully acquired firearm.

I guess I tend to take things on a case by case basis and just because I'm pro 2nd amendment doesn't mean I don't believe every person should have a gun. I'm glad we at least live in a country where we can disagree and have different opinions.

I suspect your attacker is already a felon and thus a prohibited person. Just a guess.

a1c
12-10-2012, 9:48 AM
I suspect your attacker is already a felon and thus a prohibited person. Just a guess.

Felons have to start somewhere.

Moonshine
12-10-2012, 10:34 AM
Well I have no doubt whoever it was is a previous offender... and probably a substance abuser who needed some quick cash. It takes a pretty hardened offender to attack random people. Most violent crimes the victim knew the attacker prior to the crime. In any event I'm much more alert and careful where I walk at night these days in a world where criminals are brazen and feel empowered by a state that disarms their victims in public.

anthonyca
12-10-2012, 10:50 AM
Well I have no doubt whoever it was is a previous offender... and probably a substance abuser who needed some quick cash. It takes a pretty hardened offender to attack random people. Most violent crimes the victim knew the attacker prior to the crime. In any event I'm much more alert and careful where I walk at night these days in a world where criminals are brazen and feel empowered by a state that disarms their victims in public.

Your attacker committed multiple felonies against you. He was almost certainly already a convicted felon who should not even be on the street. Someone who does what happened to you, an innocent person, forfeited their right to be free and we are much to easy on them. I am upset and sorry that you were attacked from behind by a cowardly felon, I truly am.

However, the OP is asking about mistemeanors. I have posted the jury instructions in the past. Mistemeanor battery in California is ANY unwanted touching. It need not cause pain or harm, it does not even need to intend to cause pain or harm, and it doesn't have to intend to cause fear or gain an advantage. Should someone be stripped of a fundamental God given right for something so trivial?

MigNoche
12-10-2012, 11:00 AM
There should be no firearm prohibitions outside of incarceration. the right to bare arms is something we are all born with. It is not a privilege. It is a RIGHT. If society doesnt trust someone with a gun, why would anyone believe it to be prudent to let them out to walk among us and our children. Once out of jail, rights restored. Why are we releasing people to walk among us who we have deemed untrustworthy to have a gun. Why is this person on my roadways in my stores and walking down my street?

In a free country, guns are what you buy at hardware stores. No paperwork, no questions, just cash. In to tyrannical society our free will is removed and we are required to ask for permission, only then when granted are we allowed to enjoy these rights. Which one are we?

I could go on and on. I apologize for the thread drift.

The 10 years is from your last conviction.

I could not have said it any better myself!

Moonshine
12-10-2012, 11:35 AM
ANY unwanted contact is a VERY subjective definition. I guess I should start looking for a gerbal ball with a feeding tune for beer when I go to a bar.

morfeeis
12-10-2012, 12:51 PM
Well I guess you guys will be happy to know then that my attacker, who was not arrested can still buy a gun. Personally I'm not comfortable with someone who attacks people in parks while on their way to their vehicle being able to buy guns... but I also happen to be equally uncomfortable with "assault weapon bans" that turn law abiding citizens into felons because of cosmetic features on their lawfully acquired firearm.

I guess I tend to take things on a case by case basis and just because I'm pro 2nd amendment doesn't mean I don't believe every person should have a gun. I'm glad we at least live in a country where we can disagree and have different opinions.

Hate to tell you this bub, you're not pro 2A. you're an anti who owns a firearm.

m16
12-10-2012, 2:06 PM
snip

So, you don't even know who the attacker was, but you're sure they can legally own a firearm, and even more sure that they've committed other assaults.

Wow, I don't even know where to begin.

Moonshine
12-10-2012, 2:09 PM
An "anti who owns a firearm"? I'm not even going to bother responding to that other than to say labeling other gun owners who are against bans and are pro right to carry as "antis" just because they believe in background checks is the same divide and conquer tactic used by the gun control lobby. When it comes to issues like Yee's bullet button ban numbers count and alienating other gun owners reduces those numbers.

Decoligny
12-10-2012, 3:07 PM
An "anti who owns a firearm"? I'm not even going to bother responding to that other than to say labeling other gun owners who are against bans and are pro right to carry as "antis" just because they believe in background checks is the same divide and conquer tactic used by the gun control lobby. When it comes to issues like Yee's bullet button ban numbers count and alienating other gun owners reduces those numbers.

Ok then how about putting it this way, you are "Pro Gun Control". :rolleyes:

tcrpe
12-10-2012, 3:12 PM
Ok then how about putting it this way, you are "Pro Gun Control". :rolleyes:

Trying to start a pissing match? I believe that there are millions that should not be trusted with, or have access to, firearms.

Moonshine
12-10-2012, 3:30 PM
+1 on what tcrpe said.

this has degenerated into a pissing match and the thread should be locked my a moderator or we should get back on the topic the OP started with.

donny douchebag
12-10-2012, 3:53 PM
Did we learn anything? Like one can't argue with a drunken man? Or men in this case? And that most gun owners continue to be their own worst enemy?

readysetgo
12-10-2012, 8:48 PM
"this has degenerated into a pissing match and the thread should be locked my a moderator or we should get back on the topic the OP started with"

Or you could just stop saying the same things over and over!?!?

morfeeis
12-10-2012, 10:10 PM
An "anti who owns a firearm"? I'm not even going to bother responding to that other than to say labeling other gun owners who are against bans and are pro right to carry as "antis" just because they believe in background checks is the same divide and conquer tactic used by the gun control lobby. When it comes to issues like Yee's bullet button ban numbers count and alienating other gun owners reduces those numbers.
I am an advocate of freedom, i feel if someone isn't responsible enough to have item X then they aren't responsible enough to live and as soon as we take care of all these safe guards Darwins law will take care of the rest.

Calling you an anti gunner might be a bit harsh but i'll damn sure staid by you not totally understanding the basis of the 2a. I say this only because you thought it was ok to prohibit someone from owning a firearm for anything less then a psychotic break.

border.bandito
12-10-2012, 10:47 PM
is it even remotely possible for one...just ONE, thread on this forum to stay on topic and not turn into a train wreck?

..geez people, no wonder mainstream America thinks all guns owners are nut jobs...they probably read through the threads on Calguns.

Moonshine
12-10-2012, 11:08 PM
We're creating a whole thread out of something that happened to me 20+ years ago at this point and although I'm flattered to have this much attention at this time I'm also bored discussing this further so I'll defer to you guys to discuss this amongst yourselves in here.

MOA1
12-10-2012, 11:43 PM
Well I guess you guys will be happy to know then that my attacker, who was not arrested can still buy a gun. Personally I'm not comfortable with someone who attacks people in parks while on their way to their vehicle being able to buy guns... but I also happen to be equally uncomfortable with "assault weapon bans" that turn law abiding citizens into felons because of cosmetic features on their lawfully acquired firearm.

I guess I tend to take things on a case by case basis and just because I'm pro 2nd amendment doesn't mean I don't believe every person should have a gun. I'm glad we at least live in a country where we can disagree and have different opinions.

Not arrested. But we should ban anyone else that has a conviction against them regardless of how minor it was. Because the guy that beat you over the head was never caught and he did not use a gun. Ya, makes perfect sense.

The more I read crap like you posted the more I feel like I may become violently ill.........

The stupidity is beyond what I can take.

Moonshine
12-10-2012, 11:44 PM
You are the one that said that bumping into someone during an argument should cary a lifetime ban on AII

Although I said I wouldn't be back I will specify that what you're saying is NOT what I said. What I said had to do with Battery & Assault convictions. And that thus far was the only information provided was two counts on a single case. Since then this thread has gone into a run on thread and is set to go on for a LONG time without being productive. AND also note in my original thread I did not specify that there should be a lifetime ban as a result... only that such a person, in my opinion (not in law) who did get those convictions shouldn't be looking to purchase a gun. The last I checked there's something called the FIRST amendment (a right that I also cherish and is disappearing just as fast as the SECOND) which allows individuals to state their opinions which has lead to this thread growing to this size after the OP's question was answered.

The law says 10 years since last conviction so if that's the case such a person with two misdemeanor counts on a case can pursue buying a gun after that time (two counts doesnt double the 10 years to my knowledge). I fail to see at what point I stated the law should be changed from what it is. Instead this thread has ran on with a variety of messages read into various posts. It's a shame though for people to think another firearm owner is out to get guns banned, we're all after many of the same goals and we're all being screwed by the same legislature which is constantly out to not only further reduce our rights but turn us into felons overnight with lovely laws like Yee's bullet button ban which was ex post facto by providing no registration to us and confiscated our lawful property :eek:!!!

so... enough with making this a run-on thread :threadjacked:

readysetgo
12-11-2012, 7:22 AM
We're creating a whole thread out of something that happened to me 20+ years ago at this point and although I'm flattered to have this much attention at this time I'm also bored discussing this further so I'll defer to you guys to discuss this amongst yourselves in here.

Correction: YOU'RE derailing the thread!

Narcissist much?

m16
12-11-2012, 7:41 AM
lol

"I'm done with this thread!!!"

"Just kidding!!!"

This could have been a good thread until you chimed in with your story that had nothing to do with the original post.

I predict a lock, way to go dude.