Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #681  
Old 10-12-2013, 9:48 PM
seatech seatech is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Enos !
As I see it if you can’t hold office as a Notary Public, then a core right has been denied/revoked then restored by 1203.4 (a) .
http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notar...ifications.htm
On the same page you will find
All applicants are required to disclose on their application any arrests for which trial is pending and all convictions. Convictions dismissed under Penal Code section1203.4 or 1203.4a must be disclosed. If you have any questions concerning the disclosure of convictions or arrests, contact the Secretary of State prior to signing the application.

Then I would further say that as a person convicted of MCDV also looses their 4 amendment rights while on probation.
As well as the obvious 10 year gun ban by California sure looks like a loss of rights and then restoration.

To sum it up, I count the loss of at least two civil liberties and one civil right (core civil rights as the government defines it ?) as to which all were taken away by the state and then restored by the state. Then to have all your sins wiped away by a 1203.4 (a) . Hmm, why is this so hard to understand, Holder?

Now SCOTUS ! wow a lot action..

Sorry this is my first post on the outstanding forum and I generally don’t post much in forums. I have been reading a lot and read the case on Enos.

Madison Society Contributor
Reply With Quote
  #682  
Old 10-25-2013, 12:40 PM
donnie707 donnie707 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 61
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

can anyone answer this for me. back in 2005? I think, my wife and I had an argument. cops came, arrested me. went to court and they said I had to take a 52 week dm class. I took the class and they said that everything is cleared and the charges were expunged? does that mean I am allowed to buy a firearm? I was never on parole. I think they said charges would be dropped after I take the class. is there any way I can find out before I try to buy a firearm?
Reply With Quote
  #683  
Old 10-25-2013, 12:55 PM
dave_cg dave_cg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sunnyvale
Posts: 286
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yes, there is a form you can sent in. I think it is the "Firearms Eligibility Check".
https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/forms
Somebody will probably be along shortly to correct me if I am mistaken.
__________________
== The price of freedom is eternal litigation. ==
Reply With Quote
  #684  
Old 10-28-2013, 5:21 PM
journeyman journeyman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Corona
Posts: 115
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by donnie707 View Post
can anyone answer this for me. back in 2005? I think, my wife and I had an argument. cops came, arrested me. went to court and they said I had to take a 52 week dm class. I took the class and they said that everything is cleared and the charges were expunged? does that mean I am allowed to buy a firearm? I was never on parole. I think they said charges would be dropped after I take the class. is there any way I can find out before I try to buy a firearm?

NO! the dismissal you're talking about is the 1203.4(a) which is state. you won't pass a pfec. under federal law youre banned lifetime!

Last edited by journeyman; 10-28-2013 at 5:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #685  
Old 11-09-2013, 12:56 AM
JesseXXX's Avatar
JesseXXX JesseXXX is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Lomita, RPK
Posts: 770
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

So basically... this is the only test case that can possibly change the DV 2nd Ammendment ban...? It still blows me away a misdemeanor can wipe a right away... Specially lke a DV case that was literally just yelling.... And yet a convicted child sex offender still can keep his 2nd rights WTF..?
Reply With Quote
  #686  
Old 11-18-2013, 3:27 PM
SunTzu's Avatar
SunTzu SunTzu is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 75
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...8/11-50107.pdf

US vs Chovan decided. Just made Kilmers case that much harder.
Reply With Quote
  #687  
Old 11-18-2013, 4:11 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,596
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SunTzu View Post
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...8/11-50107.pdf

US vs Chovan decided. Just made Kilmers case that much harder.
What a ruling. From my reading (IANAL) they are saying that the RKBA is not a civil right. If he had been convicted of felony DV, he would have lost his right to vote, and if that were then restored, he would count as having his civil rights restored and then he would be ok. They also said that under intermediate scrutiny, Congress can do whatever it feels like basically.

My feeling is the courts are just hostile to the RKBA and will do everything to read it out of the constitution. I wish I could do that with contracts I don't like. "Yeah, I know I have a contract with my bank that I have to pay my credit card bill, but that line on my bill, where I spend $50k on a new Purdey shotgun... I'm going to read that line out of the agreement!" Wouldn't that be nice.
__________________
I will spit whenever I hear the word Libertarian from now on.

In the 2016 election, Libertarian voters threw the swing states of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine to Hillary, for a total of 38 electoral college votes. Hillary would have created a permanent a permanent entitlement class and permanent Democratic control over the US.
Reply With Quote
  #688  
Old 11-18-2013, 4:24 PM
chainsaw chainsaw is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 660
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
What a ruling. From my reading (IANAL) they are saying that the RKBA is not a civil right.
I disagree. I think they say that there are more civil rights than just the RKBA, and when they talk about the plaintiff's civil rights, they talk about all of them as a bundle. The important thing is that the plaintiff didn't lose the whole bundle, and didn't have the whole bundle restored.

The concurring opinion is particularly fascinating, and should be read by the people who were arguing scrutiny here a while ago. It comes to the following fascinating conclusion: Where a major burden on the 2A is concerned, the correct level of scrutiny to use is strict scrutiny, not intermediate scrutiny. It then finds that the Lautenberg amendment can stand, even under strict scrutiny. And it cites all the statistics (which gun rights mavens like to ignore) that show that restrictive laws are frequently upheld, even under strict scrutiny.

EDITed: SunTzu pointed out that this is obviously the concurring opinion, not the dissenting one. My bad.

Last edited by chainsaw; 11-18-2013 at 11:27 PM.. Reason: I'm dumb.
Reply With Quote
  #689  
Old 11-18-2013, 4:44 PM
John Galt John Galt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

page 21
the core right identified in Heller—the right of a law-abiding, responsible
citizen to possess and carry a weapon for self-defense


I wonder if they are tipping their hats to any of the right to carry suits.
Reply With Quote
  #690  
Old 11-18-2013, 4:46 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,267
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Here, we apply Brailey and conclude that Chovan’s 1996
misdemeanor domestic violence conviction did not divest him
of civil rights because it did not divest him of the right to
vote, the right to serve on a jury, or the right to hold public
office. Because Chovan never lost these “core” civil rights,
he cannot qualify for the civil rights restored exception to
§ 922(g)(9). Further, we reject Chovan’s argument that the
civil rights restored exception violates the Equal Protection
Clause for the same reasons we articulated in Hancock. Id.
at 566–67.
Opinion at page 10.

Essentially, 'we decided this part already'. But Brailey and Hancock were both pre-Heller and pre-McDonald; at that time, gun ownership was not thought a 'core civil right' - and arguably the courts still do not think so.

It is also the case that all the offenses and convictions - Brailey, Hancock, Chovan - were pre-Heller and pre-McDonald.
__________________
The Legislature is in recess. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 11-18-2013 at 4:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #691  
Old 11-18-2013, 5:07 PM
SunTzu's Avatar
SunTzu SunTzu is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 75
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The dissenting opinion is particularly fascinating, and should be read by the people who were arguing scrutiny here a while ago. It comes to the following fascinating conclusion: Where a major burden on the 2A is concerned, the correct level of scrutiny to use is strict scrutiny, not intermediate scrutiny. It then finds that the Lautenberg amendment can stand, even under strict scrutiny. And it cites all the statistics (which gun rights mavens like to ignore) that show that restrictive laws are frequently upheld, even under strict scrutiny.

Not dissenting, but concurring. Interesting thing is they mention 1023.4 as a means of restoration. Don't they know their own rulings?
Reply With Quote
  #692  
Old 11-18-2013, 7:37 PM
LoneYote's Avatar
LoneYote LoneYote is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 614
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainsaw View Post
I disagree. I think they say that there are more civil rights than just the RKBA, and when they talk about the plaintiff's civil rights, they talk about all of them as a bundle. The important thing is that the plaintiff didn't lose the whole bundle, and didn't have the whole bundle restored.
So would a law about say misdemeanor shouting in public(decibel level too high) be a legitimate law if the punishment were the following? Could the punishment be removal of your 1a rights as a bundle(No religion, No speaking, No reading)? Neither of these would be viable in a judicial setting. How they manage to convince themselves that the line of reasoning is acceptable... there are not words.
__________________
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossy View Post
let me guess this means the case will move as fast as a Tuttle on heroin now instead of a snail on salt.................
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Need we have a moderator behind every blade of grass?
Reply With Quote
  #693  
Old 11-18-2013, 11:20 PM
chainsaw chainsaw is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 660
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneYote View Post
So would a law about say misdemeanor shouting in public(decibel level too high) be a legitimate law if the punishment were the following? Could the punishment be removal of your 1a rights as a bundle(No religion, No speaking, No reading)? Neither of these would be viable in a judicial setting. How they manage to convince themselves that the line of reasoning is acceptable... there are not words.
In the context of the decision, your comment makes no sense.

Please read the decision cover to cover, and then decide whether you want to ask the question again.
Reply With Quote
  #694  
Old 11-18-2013, 11:23 PM
LoneYote's Avatar
LoneYote LoneYote is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 614
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainsaw View Post
In the context of the decision, your comment makes no sense.

Please read the decision cover to cover, and then decide whether you want to ask the question again.
I wasn't quoting the decision... I was quoting you. Asking about the line of thinking which you proposed.
__________________
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossy View Post
let me guess this means the case will move as fast as a Tuttle on heroin now instead of a snail on salt.................
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Need we have a moderator behind every blade of grass?
Reply With Quote
  #695  
Old 11-18-2013, 11:28 PM
chainsaw chainsaw is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 660
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I was not proposing a line of thinking. I was quoting the decision. The decision says, in a nutshell, that the question whether the plaintiff did (or did not) lose his civil rights, or rather had them restored, depends on whether he lost all his civil rights or not. Restoration isn't restoration, if it doesn't restore what was actually lost.
Reply With Quote
  #696  
Old 11-19-2013, 12:08 AM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 835
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Theres some interesting tid bits in this that i agree may be hat tips to some pending 9 CA cases or 9th CA sentiments. this is far from over and kilmer will still see his day in court but may be threading a thinner needle
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc

Last edited by ddestruel; 11-19-2013 at 6:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #697  
Old 11-19-2013, 7:10 AM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneYote View Post
So would a law about say misdemeanor shouting in public(decibel level too high) be a legitimate law if the punishment were the following? Could the punishment be removal of your 1a rights as a bundle(No religion, No speaking, No reading)? Neither of these would be viable in a judicial setting. How they manage to convince themselves that the line of reasoning is acceptable... there are not words.
I think SCOTUS draws a bit of a distinct line at "violent" felonies, and the application of some recent opinions to mere yelling might well result in the overturn of your hypothetical 1A ban for misdemeanor yelling.
Johnson v. US (2010) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-6925.pdf
Applying "violent felony" in 18 USC 924(e) to 18 USC 922(g)(1). SCOTUS found Florida's statute only required the slightest touching, which is not sufficient 'force' to be considered a 'violent' felony.

Cert was granted near the beginning of last month in Castleman. TN law didn't require "violence" for domestic assault conviction, application to 18 USC 922(g)(9). 6CA says defendant not banned, SCOTUS oral arg set for 1/14/2014.

Unfortunately, Castleman is one of those crappy facts cases that hopefully don't result in bad law.
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peña v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA).
Reply With Quote
  #698  
Old 11-19-2013, 6:40 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,212
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SunTzu View Post
The dissenting opinion is particularly fascinating, and should be read by the people who were arguing scrutiny here a while ago. It comes to the following fascinating conclusion: Where a major burden on the 2A is concerned, the correct level of scrutiny to use is strict scrutiny, not intermediate scrutiny. It then finds that the Lautenberg amendment can stand, even under strict scrutiny. And it cites all the statistics (which gun rights mavens like to ignore) that show that restrictive laws are frequently upheld, even under strict scrutiny.

Not dissenting, but concurring. Interesting thing is they mention 1023.4 as a means of restoration. Don't they know their own rulings?
Do you mean 1203.4? Either they are incompetent or they are liars. The US attorneys and the courts have mentioned many times that 1203.4 would have been an easy for someone who has been stripped rights to regain them. We know this is not true. Also remember that until Enos, we never had a vetted plaintiff who was not appealing or a multiple offender.

Don Kilmer is smart in that he has one of the plaintiffs in Enos who has received a 1203.4 expungement. I believe it was Skoin SP? that erroneously mentioned 1203.4 as a way out. I know it was specifically mentioned by one of the circuits in a published case and I posted it here. I can find it if that would help.

Sorry for the choppy post. I'm on my phone.
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union...70812799700206

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
I am a physician. I am held to being "the expert" in medicine. I can't fall back on feigned ignorance and the statement that the patient should have known better than I. When an officer "can't be expected to know the entire penal code", but a citizen is held to "ignorance is no excuse", this is equivalent to ME being able to sue my patient for my own malpractice-after all, the patient should have known better, right?

Last edited by anthonyca; 11-19-2013 at 6:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #699  
Old 11-23-2013, 7:42 PM
M107A1 M107A1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SunTzu View Post
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...8/11-50107.pdf

US vs Chovan decided. Just made Kilmers case that much harder.
It appears that the ruling may actually help Kilmers case mainly because in both the majority opinion and dissenting opinion, they at least acknowledge the exceptions to 922 (g)(9)??? (I could be incorrect in my interpretation since I am not legal savvy)
Reply With Quote
  #700  
Old 11-25-2013, 1:08 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,212
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M107A1 View Post
It appears that the ruling may actually help Kilmers case mainly because in both the majority opinion and dissenting opinion, they at least acknowledge the exceptions to 922 (g)(9)??? (I could be incorrect in my interpretation since I am not legal savvy)
What are these exceptions?
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union...70812799700206

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
I am a physician. I am held to being "the expert" in medicine. I can't fall back on feigned ignorance and the statement that the patient should have known better than I. When an officer "can't be expected to know the entire penal code", but a citizen is held to "ignorance is no excuse", this is equivalent to ME being able to sue my patient for my own malpractice-after all, the patient should have known better, right?
Reply With Quote
  #701  
Old 11-25-2013, 6:14 PM
M107A1 M107A1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyca View Post
What are these exceptions?
It is kind of lengthy but, the following can be found on Pg 49-51 of the opinion and is related to 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(b)(ii):

In answer to Chovan’s as-applied challenge, California, where Chovan was convicted, makes expungement of misdemeanor convictions a right. Under § 1203.4a(a) of the California Penal Code, all misdemeanants can have their convictions expunged after completion of their sentences if they have not been charged with or convicted of a further crime and have “lived an honest and upright life.” Moreover, defendants must be informed of this right to expungement “either orally or in writing, at the time he or she is sentenced.” Id. at § 1203.4a(c)(1). Prosecuting attorneys have fifteen days from the filing of the petition for dismissal with the court to object. Id. at § 1203.4a(f). This participation of the district attorneys in the process allows California to maintain some adversarial integrity in the expungement proceedings, as the district attorney can oppose the motion if the convict’s rehabilitation is doubtful. This system places the evaluation of the convict’s rehabilitation,
vel non, in the state. Indeed, California courts have interpreted § 1203.4a(a) to mandate expungement when misdemeanants have complied with its terms. See, e.g., People v. Chandler, 250 Cal. Rptr. 730, 734 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (“[A] defendant moving under Penal Code section 1203.4a is entitled as a matter of right to its benefits upon a showing that he has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation. It was apparently intended that when a defendant has satisfied the terms of probation, the
trial court should have no discretion but to carry out its part of the bargain with the defendant.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Section 922 is in part a federalism-based statute. It looks to state law, passing restrictions on certain convicts based on decisions made by state legislatures and courts. Section 922 also ceases to apply if convicts have satisfied the state procedures for expungement. This helps the statute satisfy
the narrow tailoring prong of strict scrutiny. It allows those who no longer pose a threat to society to demonstrate their rehabilitation and reclaim their Second Amendment rights. It is not a blunt instrument. Rather, it targets only those whom the states continue to deem not rehabilitated. It is
therefore narrowly tailored to the goal of preventing only those who pose the greatest risk to potential domestic violence victims from possessing guns.
Reply With Quote
  #702  
Old 11-25-2013, 6:41 PM
M107A1 M107A1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyca View Post
Do you mean 1203.4? Either they are incompetent or they are liars. The US attorneys and the courts have mentioned many times that 1203.4 would have been an easy for someone who has been stripped rights to regain them. We know this is not true. Also remember that until Enos, we never had a vetted plaintiff who was not appealing or a multiple offender.

Don Kilmer is smart in that he has one of the plaintiffs in Enos who has received a 1203.4 expungement. I believe it was Skoin SP? that erroneously mentioned 1203.4 as a way out. I know it was specifically mentioned by one of the circuits in a published case and I posted it here. I can find it if that would help.

Sorry for the choppy post. I'm on my phone.
You are absolutely corrrect that about the 1203.4 expungement Anthony. It was US v. Skoien en banc in CA7 on page 16 of the opinion. It appears that CA9 is going to have to force the feds to recognize it with two different circuits citing the same exact method of relief. Kilmer also actually brought up that it was cited in the Skoien opinion during round 1 of Enos.
Reply With Quote
  #703  
Old 11-26-2013, 5:46 AM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,212
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M107A1 View Post
It is kind of lengthy but, the following can be found on Pg 49-51 of the opinion and is related to 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(b)(ii):

In answer to Chovan’s as-applied challenge, California, where Chovan was convicted, makes expungement of misdemeanor convictions a right. Under § 1203.4a(a) of the California Penal Code, all misdemeanants can have their convictions expunged after completion of their sentences if they have not been charged with or convicted of a further crime and have “lived an honest and upright life.” Moreover, defendants must be informed of this right to expungement “either orally or in writing, at the time he or she is sentenced.” Id. at § 1203.4a(c)(1). Prosecuting attorneys have fifteen days from the filing of the petition for dismissal with the court to object. Id. at § 1203.4a(f). This participation of the district attorneys in the process allows California to maintain some adversarial integrity in the expungement proceedings, as the district attorney can oppose the motion if the convict’s rehabilitation is doubtful. This system places the evaluation of the convict’s rehabilitation,
vel non, in the state. Indeed, California courts have interpreted § 1203.4a(a) to mandate expungement when misdemeanants have complied with its terms. See, e.g., People v. Chandler, 250 Cal. Rptr. 730, 734 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (“[A] defendant moving under Penal Code section 1203.4a is entitled as a matter of right to its benefits upon a showing that he has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation. It was apparently intended that when a defendant has satisfied the terms of probation, the
trial court should have no discretion but to carry out its part of the bargain with the defendant.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Section 922 is in part a federalism-based statute. It looks to state law, passing restrictions on certain convicts based on decisions made by state legislatures and courts. Section 922 also ceases to apply if convicts have satisfied the state procedures for expungement. This helps the statute satisfy
the narrow tailoring prong of strict scrutiny. It allows those who no longer pose a threat to society to demonstrate their rehabilitation and reclaim their Second Amendment rights. It is not a blunt instrument. Rather, it targets only those whom the states continue to deem not rehabilitated. It is
therefore narrowly tailored to the goal of preventing only those who pose the greatest risk to potential domestic violence victims from possessing guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M107A1 View Post
You are absolutely corrrect that about the 1203.4 expungement Anthony. It was US v. Skoien en banc in CA7 on page 16 of the opinion. It appears that CA9 is going to have to force the feds to recognize it with two different circuits citing the same exact method of relief. Kilmer also actually brought up that it was cited in the Skoien opinion during round 1 of Enos.
Very interesting. Of course Skoien, (even though he was not in California) couldn't have been protected by 1203.4, wasn't he on probation when he was arrested? The common theme that I have found with all the cases of DV gun rights in each circuit is that every case was brought by a multiple offender and most were on probation at the time.

So what does this mean to someone in California with a 1203.4?
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union...70812799700206

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
I am a physician. I am held to being "the expert" in medicine. I can't fall back on feigned ignorance and the statement that the patient should have known better than I. When an officer "can't be expected to know the entire penal code", but a citizen is held to "ignorance is no excuse", this is equivalent to ME being able to sue my patient for my own malpractice-after all, the patient should have known better, right?
Reply With Quote
  #704  
Old 11-26-2013, 7:12 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,843
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a ninth circuit opinion (Jennings) holding that 1203.4 does not "expunge" the conviction for purposes of Lautenberg. Also, the plaintiffs are not arguing that 1203.4 or 1203.4a expunges the conviction:

Quote:
The California procedure for having a misdemeanor conviction set aside and/or expunged is embodied in California Penal Code §§ 1203.4 and 1203.4a. Upon completing probation the defendant is allowed to withdraw their guilty plea and have the accusatory pleading dismissed. Thus the person is returned to the status of being ‘law-abiding.’ By their plain language these statutes, do not by themselves, reinstate firearm rights.
Reply With Quote
  #705  
Old 11-26-2013, 8:04 AM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
(2) Dismissal of an accusation or information pursuant to this section does not permit a person to own, possess, or have in his or her custody or control any firearm or prevent his or her conviction under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 29800) of Division 9 of Title 4 of Part 6.
___
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peña v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA).
Reply With Quote
  #706  
Old 11-26-2013, 8:44 AM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,212
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a ninth circuit opinion (Jennings) holding that 1203.4 does not "expunge" the conviction for purposes of Lautenberg. Also, the plaintiffs are not arguing that 1203.4 or 1203.4a expunges the conviction:
Then why have the 7th and 9th circuit both brought up that 1203.4 would have restored the rights of defendants? Are they that inept or are they lying for some reason? Or perhaps they believe that Lennings and the BATF are wrong in stating that 1203.4 is not an "expungement" per lautenberg.

Both times I have read published reports where the 7th and 9th brought up 1203.4 as a means of rights restoration, they brought it up on their own, the defense never raised 1203.4 and every mist DV case that made it to the circuit level that I have read was brought by someone on probation or where lautenberg was used as a Stacker to major crimes that carry less state time than fed gun possession my a mist DV.

Sorry for being on phone.
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union...70812799700206

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
I am a physician. I am held to being "the expert" in medicine. I can't fall back on feigned ignorance and the statement that the patient should have known better than I. When an officer "can't be expected to know the entire penal code", but a citizen is held to "ignorance is no excuse", this is equivalent to ME being able to sue my patient for my own malpractice-after all, the patient should have known better, right?
Reply With Quote
  #707  
Old 11-26-2013, 9:31 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,843
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

On my phone too, I don't think Jennings was even briefed by the parties in Chovan and it looks like the concurring judge in Chovan was just borrowing language and cites from Skoien and may not have independently researched anything. kind if embarrassing if that is what happened. Maybe a law clerk is responsible. In any event the language in the Chovan concurrence is not the 9th circuit saying anything, it's one panel judge.
Reply With Quote
  #708  
Old 11-27-2013, 10:30 AM
mobileglass mobileglass is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 46
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The difference in opinion on the federal view of 1203.4 or "expungement" under 922 is that the ATF DOES recognize restoration as applying, it did so from 1994-@2004 until they were de-funded and the FBI started interpreting it under each state's view of expungement.
My question for this post is a new one.
With the ambiguity between state and federal law, and all the flip-flopping over the 2nd Amendment...
When these cases are filed, has anyone seen the courts address the issue at hand as an ERIE PROBLEM?
Reply With Quote
  #709  
Old 12-02-2013, 9:20 AM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,212
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mobileglass View Post
The difference in opinion on the federal view of 1203.4 or "expungement" under 922 is that the ATF DOES recognize restoration as applying, it did so from 1994-@2004 until they were de-funded and the FBI started interpreting it under each state's view of expungement.
My question for this post is a new one.
With the ambiguity between state and federal law, and all the flip-flopping over the 2nd Amendment...
When these cases are filed, has anyone seen the courts address the issue at hand as an ERIE PROBLEM?
That is one example I use when people say there is no problem with registration or when they say that only an idiot would not know he is prohibited. Thousands of people, many of them police officers and military personnel, were cleared through intensive background checks and told they were good to go as far as owning or possessing a gun. Then the ATF changed their mind, BAM, instant felon with no way out! I saw this happen when I was in the Army, we had people with secret clearance who passed all kinds of checks. All of a sudden, the ATF changed their view and they were instant felons for going to.drill, not only them, but the command and anyone who gave them a gun. The same can happen with court rulings.
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union...70812799700206

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
I am a physician. I am held to being "the expert" in medicine. I can't fall back on feigned ignorance and the statement that the patient should have known better than I. When an officer "can't be expected to know the entire penal code", but a citizen is held to "ignorance is no excuse", this is equivalent to ME being able to sue my patient for my own malpractice-after all, the patient should have known better, right?

Last edited by anthonyca; 12-02-2013 at 9:35 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #710  
Old 12-02-2013, 7:37 PM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 835
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

they say 1203.4 provides a path to restoring your rights, the right is not encumbered because a path to restoration exists.... oh but by the way we interpret that not to actually restore your rights in certain cases and your state can choose to not allow or interpret it as not granting all rights back...

am i reading this right?

so in the case of NFA items... just to read this interpretation into a different subject mater that still irks me since I’ve lived in free states.
I’ve heard it said that federal tax stamps provided access to NFA FA weapons, the process of an excise tax stamp does not encumber the right since there as still access..... oh but by the way 50 years later we changed our minds no more tax stamps will be issued, and your state can choose to not allow the existing ones anymore. you still have the right and access just not as much access to it as we previously granted you.

so the 1203.4 they claim gives people a path to resorting rights or so the court says then choose later in the law and with other laws they choose to encumber or interpret the path away... so it exists but doesn’t exist.?

sorry i just felt like trying to tie that together
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc

Last edited by ddestruel; 12-03-2013 at 6:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #711  
Old 12-03-2013, 1:33 PM
mobileglass mobileglass is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 46
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I don't know why people do not read the section:

1203.4
(2) Dismissal of an accusation or information pursuant to this section does not permit a person to own, possess, or have in his or her custody or control any firearm or prevent his or her conviction under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 29800) of Division 9 of Title 4 of Part 6.
Reply With Quote
  #712  
Old 12-04-2013, 1:47 PM
donnie707 donnie707 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 61
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by journeyman View Post
NO! the dismissal you're talking about is the 1203.4(a) which is state. you won't pass a pfec. under federal law youre banned lifetime!
ok. I just got my PFEC in the mail. it has it checked off that I am eligible to both possess and purchase firearms. so I guess im clear! HOOAH! time to go shopping. for everyone else in this thread. keep fighting the good fight.
Reply With Quote
  #713  
Old 12-04-2013, 3:57 PM
e90bmw e90bmw is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Northern Ca.
Posts: 1,268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Hi,

The "US vs Chovan Case" is interesting, but did anyone read the pdf?
He was convicted in 1996 of DV.
In 2009 he tried to buy a gun. Denied.
They then started investigating him:
In March of 2010 yet another DV charge.
In April they searched and found four guns.

"During their investigation, FBI agents found videos on the Internet depicting Chovan and others shooting rifles and conducting “border patrols” near the U.S.-Mexico border"

"During his arrest, Chovan admitted that he had possessed and fired the firearms several times since his 1996 domestic violence conviction"

If this was a serious 2A challenge he would have appealed the denial and gone to court. He would not have possessed and fired guns before he was cleared to do so. The guy is a moron and is trying to hide behind the 2A as to not go to jail for being an overall scum bag.
Reply With Quote
  #714  
Old 12-04-2013, 4:11 PM
LoneYote's Avatar
LoneYote LoneYote is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 614
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by e90bmw View Post
The guy is a moron and is trying to hide behind the 2A as to not go to jail for being an overall scum bag.
The question is "How does one define scum bag?" since you seem to indicate that he should not have the protection of the 2A. What happens when the government decides that having a speeding ticket is sufficient to cause a total loss of civil liberties? This is a matter of the merits of the case not the merits of the man.
__________________
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossy View Post
let me guess this means the case will move as fast as a Tuttle on heroin now instead of a snail on salt.................
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Need we have a moderator behind every blade of grass?
Reply With Quote
  #715  
Old 12-05-2013, 11:33 AM
mobileglass mobileglass is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 46
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Up until recently, when a person plead or was found guilty, most all courts did not even know of the new laws, which passed quickly and unconstitutionally, sitting in an ERIE ambiguity, or did not tell the person so convicted of the new status of their possible restriction. There were no rules in place. For felonies, of course. But for misdemeanors, I certainty never was told. Not a single attorney around knew of the Title 18; however, a paralegal did; odd!

Scum bag is the one throwing blankets over mankind as if one man = all men.
Guilty till proven guilty....
Always guilty when DV is mentioned...
The other party to the suit is never ever mentioned
The bipolar, borderline personality, blanket protected, DV sheltered women wanting equality, throwing their crazy lies around, when an officer with penis shows up and cuddles her and tells her he will be right back to kiss it all better as soon as he finishes booking your BF, she appeals to sympathy to those who are actually impartial of the situation, in-capacity agents of the state want nothing to do with the lies of domestic situations, and the District Attorney just wants #s to pad stats; why not throw weight at people lacking capacity of legal knowledge or the $ to defend balanced with representation
Reply With Quote
  #716  
Old 12-14-2013, 3:05 PM
SunTzu's Avatar
SunTzu SunTzu is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 75
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A great read. CORAM VS ILLINIOS. some actual thought put into this.
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinion...013/113867.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #717  
Old 12-21-2013, 9:24 PM
M107A1 M107A1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SunTzu View Post
A great read. CORAM VS ILLINIOS. some actual thought put into this.
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinion...013/113867.pdf
The opinion is very detailed. Hopefully it is enough to persuade other judges to address 2A cases on the merits and not based on public opinion. Even though, it is an "as applied" win, it is still a step in the right direction for future 2A cases.
Reply With Quote
  #718  
Old 12-23-2013, 9:10 AM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,212
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SunTzu View Post
A great read. CORAM VS ILLINIOS. some actual thought put into this.
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinion...013/113867.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by M107A1 View Post
The opinion is very detailed. Hopefully it is enough to persuade other judges to address 2A cases on the merits and not based on public opinion. Even though, it is an "as applied" win, it is still a step in the right direction for future 2A cases.
I've been working a lot and haven't had time to read the opinion. What is the synopsis?
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union...70812799700206

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
I am a physician. I am held to being "the expert" in medicine. I can't fall back on feigned ignorance and the statement that the patient should have known better than I. When an officer "can't be expected to know the entire penal code", but a citizen is held to "ignorance is no excuse", this is equivalent to ME being able to sue my patient for my own malpractice-after all, the patient should have known better, right?
Reply With Quote
  #719  
Old 12-23-2013, 11:05 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,267
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

JERRY W. CORAM, Appellee, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (The
Illinois Department of State Police, Appellant).
Quote:
A circuit court’s original 2010 order for issuance of a Firearm Owner’s
Identification card 18 years after a misdemeanor conviction for domestic
battery was upheld, and its subsequent ruling that federal firearms law
incorporated into the Illinois statute was unconstitutional as applied was
vacated.
...
We believe the applicable state and federal statutory schemes can be interpreted in a
manner consistent with congressional intent and in such a way as to afford Coram his firearm
rights under the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 22) and the second amendment
to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. II). We thus conclude the circuit court
erred in holding section 922(g)(9) unconstitutional as applied to Coram.
ETA: being a state of Illinois case, its influence on any Federal cases is, as yet, speculative.
__________________
The Legislature is in recess. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 12-23-2013 at 12:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #720  
Old 01-17-2014, 3:14 PM
M107A1 M107A1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

In light of United States v. Castleman being argued in SCOTUS, what are the possible impacts if any that it might have on Enos' case?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...2-1371&TY=2013
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:41 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.