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 > How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 07-10-2017, 8:54 AM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy 🔫
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nakatomi Plaza - 30th floor
Posts: 13,068
iTrader: 152 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellon View Post
I found it interesting that if your original crime was committed at age 18, 19 or 20, you are not eligible for the relief. Because the new MJ legalization law applies only to people age 21+, it would not have applied to someone 18,19,20 and therefore they cannot rewind the clock and apply the new law to their original case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumeazy View Post
Some one will end up having to sue them and that case will set the precedent for all others. For now they can do whatever they want.

sent from the internets

That is usually how the CA DOJ rolls. "Don't like it, then sue us...."
__________________
.


Last edited by SkyHawk; 07-10-2017 at 8:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 07-10-2017, 11:14 AM
Dilexi's Avatar
Dilexi Dilexi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Oregon
Posts: 146
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Response from RGB Law Firm
Thanks for the info.

Have these people confirmed that the Prop 64 redesignation/reduction is properly showing on their DOJ criminal history transcript? In our experience, DOJ has been a minimum of 90 days behind on updating their records after a court-ordered reduction under Prop 64? If the reduction is not showing on the DOJ report, it will result in a purchase denial.

-= Richard Glen Boire
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 07-10-2017, 2:56 PM
The Papa's Avatar
The Papa The Papa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 432
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilexi View Post
Response from RGB Law Firm
Thanks for the info.

Have these people confirmed that the Prop 64 redesignation/reduction is properly showing on their DOJ criminal history transcript? In our experience, DOJ has been a minimum of 90 days behind on updating their records after a court-ordered reduction under Prop 64? If the reduction is not showing on the DOJ report, it will result in a purchase denial.

-= Richard Glen Boire
My reduction was reflected on my most recent live scan... still have a denied DROS. I guarantee I have no other disqualifiers.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 07-10-2017, 5:32 PM
Dilexi's Avatar
Dilexi Dilexi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Oregon
Posts: 146
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Papa View Post
My reduction was reflected on my most recent live scan... still have a denied DROS. I guarantee I have no other disqualifiers.
That's a drag. What do you figure the problem is?
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 07-10-2017, 6:49 PM
The Papa's Avatar
The Papa The Papa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 432
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilexi View Post
That's a drag. What do you figure the problem is?
I don't know. I rec'd my FBI NICS appeal letter stating they show I'm still prohibited yet my live scan shows I'm not. They want me to have the agency holding my record send proof to them. I emailed them my current live scan and my official court minutes of 11359 reduction when I filed the appeal... what more could the DOJ give them?????? And of course you can't actually talk to a real person to get help or clarification from either Department.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 07-10-2017, 6:56 PM
doggie doggie is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 727
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Please tell us what HS11360 and HS11359 translate into as far as what the original crimes were.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 07-10-2017, 6:59 PM
grumeazy grumeazy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Please tell us what HS11360 and HS11359 translate into as far as what the original crimes were.
One is transporting marijuana (11360) and one is possession With the intent to sell (11359)

sent from the internets
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 07-10-2017, 7:02 PM
doggie doggie is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 727
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumeazy View Post
One is transporting marijuana (11360) and one is possession With the intent to sell (11359)

sent from the internets
Well that's nuthin, nowadays. I hope you get it reduced.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 07-10-2017, 7:11 PM
Dilexi's Avatar
Dilexi Dilexi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Oregon
Posts: 146
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Papa View Post
I don't know. I rec'd my FBI NICS appeal letter stating they show I'm still prohibited yet my live scan shows I'm not. They want me to have the agency holding my record send proof to them. I emailed them my current live scan and my official court minutes of 11359 reduction when I filed the appeal... what more could the DOJ give them?????? And of course you can't actually talk to a real person to get help or clarification from either Department.
Government bureaucracy at its worst. The Second Amendment has been so bastardized.
Hoping it all gets resolved soon. Things will work out.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 07-11-2017, 6:15 AM
JeepFiend's Avatar
JeepFiend JeepFiend is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Bryan, TX
Posts: 155
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
I found it interesting that if your original crime was committed at age 18, 19 or 20, you are not eligible for the relief. Because the new MJ legalization law applies only to people age 21+, it would not have applied to someone 18,19,20 and therefore they cannot rewind the clock and apply the new law to their original case."
My reading is that the provision you mentioned only applies to some laws and doesn't mutually exclude people under 21:

"As to some offenses, to meet this element of eligibility, the
defendant must either have been between the ages of 18 and 21, or over 21 when the crime was committed."

So for instance, 11360 only specifies over the age of 18, and there is no reference to penalties over/under the age of 21. So as long as you were over 18 at the time, you should be eligible. If you were under 18 at the time, it seems likely you would have been charged as a juvenile and be eligible to have the record sealed if you were even convicted of a crime vs. deemed a ward of the court and adjudicated delinquent.

But of course, that's just my interpretation, and it has no bearing on what the DOJ will do.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 07-11-2017, 2:30 PM
Dilexi's Avatar
Dilexi Dilexi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Oregon
Posts: 146
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

From a Lawyer:

Your inquiry via our website has been referred to me for response. Your question was whether a reduction to a misdemeanor of a felony HS 11359 (possession of marijuana for sale) conviction restores one’s gun rights. Based on a plain reading of the Proposition, I believe that the correct answer is yes; however, I am aware of no appellate court case that so holds. The Proposition says that such a reduction makes the matter a misdemeanor “for all purposes.” Unlike Proposition 47 (PC 1170.18) and Expungement (PC 1203.4), Proposition 64 (HS 11361.8) does not have any language preserving a ban on gun rights.
As a practical matter, I think that you will find that the conviction will continue to cause you trouble in background checks. Make sure that the reduction was properly reported to the Department of Justice so that your rap sheet is corrected.
I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Jim McMillin
Office of the Public Defender

Last edited by Dilexi; 07-11-2017 at 2:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 07-11-2017, 7:22 PM
The Papa's Avatar
The Papa The Papa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 432
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Let me ask you guys a question. The first DROS denial letter I rec'd dated March 30th came from State of California DOJ Bureau of Firearms in Sacramento and the second DROS denial letter dated July 5th came from U.S Dept. of Justice Federal bureau of investigation in Clarksburg, WV . Does this mean anything?

I'm thinking because my most recent live scan does reflect changes per HS11359 that DOJ did not deny but the NICS did? Is that how it works? The latest letter is requesting that I have the agency holding my records send (actually fax) them proof of correction with the corresponding NTN number for refence. The first letter just stated I was being denied as a felon.

I faxed the recent letter of request from FBI to the CA DOJ bureau of firearms via the fax# that was listed on the first letterhead stating I knew of no other way to contact them. I also sent a copy of my recent live scan and official court minutes. I hope I did this right?

EDIT: Forget my question above. Im assuming that the letter from the FBI is a response to my NICS appeal application.

Last edited by The Papa; 07-12-2017 at 5:38 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 07-12-2017, 5:21 AM
JeepFiend's Avatar
JeepFiend JeepFiend is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Bryan, TX
Posts: 155
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Couple things, 1) Get your FBI rap sheet to see what's on it. If you go to an FBI Channeler, it only takes a couple hours to get your FBI record, although it's not particularly cheap. That shows you exactly what they have on you. 2) You can request the DOJ to update the FBI records, or you can challenge the FBI records directly with your paperwork, and the FBI will reach out to CA DOJ. In my case, the FBI responded more promptly than CA DOJ. 3) When communicating with CA DOJ, I always recommend certified mail so you have a tracking number. Then you can email the record review department with the tracking number and they tend to be more responsive in my experience.

I'm a persistent bugger, so I contacted everyone, and I did so every couple of weeks. When it comes to FBI Appeal Services Team, it can take forever...their website says they're still working on appeal cases on a first come, first served basis going back to August 2015. I happen to have moved to a 2A friendly state, and Senator John Cornyn reached out to the US DOJ on my behalf and requested they review my case...the issue was remedied in two months. Unfortunately, I don't believe you'll find you have the same consideration from you present CA senators.

With that said, when I got my reduction taken care of in CA, and had the record in writing with the amended charge, I acquired a PFEC that affirmed my right to purchase and possess firearms in the state of CA. From that point forward, I was able to buy weapons in CA even though FBI had not amended my record. It was not until I moved to Texas that I had to deal with the FBI. If CA is no longer blocking your firearm purchase, and the FBI is, I would suggest getting your FBI rap sheet to ensure there are no errors.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 07-12-2017, 9:09 AM
Dilexi's Avatar
Dilexi Dilexi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Oregon
Posts: 146
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I was convicted 11359 felony. 17 years ago. Now reduced to a misdemeanor under Prop 64. Can I now go to a rifle range , shoot and be around firearms?

Response

. It's a good question. Under California law, you are clear to do that. However, if they do a federal background check, you may have issues. The FBI has been pretty bad at recognizing reductions and there is no case law on that yet, so they can make arbitrary decisions.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 07-15-2017, 11:55 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy 🔫
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nakatomi Plaza - 30th floor
Posts: 13,068
iTrader: 152 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilexi View Post
I was convicted 11359 felony. 17 years ago. Now reduced to a misdemeanor under Prop 64. Can I now go to a rifle range , shoot and be around firearms?

Response

. It's a good question. Under California law, you are clear to do that. However, if they do a federal background check, you may have issues. The FBI has been pretty bad at recognizing reductions and there is no case law on that yet, so they can make arbitrary decisions.
You have to petition the court for relief and resentencing. Have you done that, and was the relief granted? Were you 21 years old or older when the crime occurred?
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 07-16-2017, 11:41 AM
Dilexi's Avatar
Dilexi Dilexi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Oregon
Posts: 146
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
You have to petition the court for relief and resentencing. Have you done that, and was the relief granted? Were you 21 years old or older when the crime occurred?
Thank you for the response.
I was over 21.
I petitioned the court for resentencing and my felony was reduced to a misdemeanor under proposition 64
06/20/2017 P64 Petition/Application for Reduction Granted
06/30/2017 Subsequent JUS 8715A form issued to the DOJ


I'm 64 years old. I have since moved to Oregon, and I'm concerned about being around guns and ammunition, because a federal background check might not be agreeable

Last edited by Dilexi; 07-16-2017 at 11:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 07-16-2017, 12:09 PM
Dilexi's Avatar
Dilexi Dilexi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Oregon
Posts: 146
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by losangeleno View Post
yes you can. btw, also get a Ca. DOJ criminal record live scan to be sure your criminal record reflects the adjusted charge by your court.
Thank you for the response:
I will check California DOJ live scan in a few months. It appears they are backed up.
I'm hoping the FBI will acknowledge the reduction in sentencing, thereby establishing Federal relief from a felony conviction.
I would like to go shooting with my nephew, at the local gun range here in Oregon.

Last edited by Dilexi; 07-16-2017 at 12:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 07-17-2017, 6:04 PM
The Papa's Avatar
The Papa The Papa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 432
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

IMG_0808.jpg
Here's what my updated DOJ live scan looks like. It looks like 2 pages because it is. Hopefully that's all it's supposed to show and I'm not missing anything.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 07-17-2017, 6:11 PM
grumeazy grumeazy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Toc says M which should denote misdemeanor, mine says F still

sent from the internets
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 07-17-2017, 6:15 PM
grumeazy grumeazy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I could be wronng though. I'm not positive on how to read this

sent from the internets
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 07-17-2017, 6:17 PM
The Papa's Avatar
The Papa The Papa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 432
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumeazy View Post
Toc says M which should denote misdemeanor, mine says F still

sent from the internets
Yes... further up it denotes F but in the updated part it is as you see.

Above this where my updates begin there is this note...
image.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 07-18-2017, 3:34 PM
The Papa's Avatar
The Papa The Papa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 432
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Well I faxed and then mailed via certified mail the official certified court orders and dismissal along with DOJ live scan to show the CA DOJ had already rec'd updated information to the FBI NICS AST (appeal services team?) today. Hoping they'll respond soon.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 07-18-2017, 4:07 PM
grumeazy grumeazy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Papa View Post
Well I faxed and then mailed via certified mail the official certified court orders and dismissal along with DOJ live scan to show the CA DOJ had already rec'd updated information to the FBI NICS AST (appeal services team?) today. Hoping they'll respond soon.
Respond soon? You're joking right?

sent from the internets
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 07-19-2017, 3:10 AM
losangeleno losangeleno is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Los Angeles,California
Posts: 579
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

grumeazy, my cal DOJ record has been reflected to show the updated amended 11359 conv. as misd. finally! just under 90 days. no to have my FBI(CJIS) Record to also reflect it. doj says in about a week the FBI record will be adjusted.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 07-19-2017, 5:12 AM
grumeazy grumeazy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by losangeleno View Post
grumeazy, my cal DOJ record has been reflected to show the updated amended 11359 conv. as misd. finally! just under 90 days. no to have my FBI(CJIS) Record to also reflect it. doj says in about a week the FBI record will be adjusted.
You actually talked to some one there? I hope it does only take a week man.

sent from the internets
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 07-19-2017, 5:30 AM
JeepFiend's Avatar
JeepFiend JeepFiend is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Bryan, TX
Posts: 155
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Papa View Post
Attachment 623280
Here's what my updated DOJ live scan looks like. It looks like 2 pages because it is. Hopefully that's all it's supposed to show and I'm not missing anything.
That record doesn't reflect the reduction and will likely not restore firearm rights.

See this thread:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1235324

This was my struggle. After my 17b mine showed the same thing initially, if you follow the thread through all the pictures you should see what it's supposed to look like.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 07-19-2017, 6:03 AM
JeepFiend's Avatar
JeepFiend JeepFiend is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Bryan, TX
Posts: 155
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

well yours is different than mine, so I hope you're correct.

Being that the offense itself was altered instead of the charge being reduced, you may very well be correct.

In the case of a 17b, the charge is reduced. Your offense is now recognized as a misdemeanor, so maybe you don't get a notation about reduction.

ETA: The "Charge not specified" and "Disposition: Unknown" threw me for a loop. In itself, the "CONV SET ASIDE AND DISMISSED PER 1203.4 PC" won't restore rights.

Last edited by JeepFiend; 07-19-2017 at 6:08 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 07-19-2017, 6:04 AM
The Papa's Avatar
The Papa The Papa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 432
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeepFiend View Post
That record doesn't reflect the reduction and will likely not restore firearm rights.

See this thread:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1235324

This was my struggle. After my 17b mine showed the same thing initially, if you follow the thread through all the pictures you should see what it's supposed to look like.
This doesnt show reduced? Beside the toc: it now shows N and M instead of F. That doesnt imply felony reduced to None and Misdemeanor?
Before:
IMG_0809.jpg

After:
IMG_0808.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 07-19-2017, 6:10 AM
The Papa's Avatar
The Papa The Papa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 432
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by losangeleno View Post
grumeazy, my cal DOJ record has been reflected to show the updated amended 11359 conv. as misd. finally! just under 90 days. no to have my FBI(CJIS) Record to also reflect it. doj says in about a week the FBI record will be adjusted.
Congrats man! Keep us posted! Good luck!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 07-19-2017, 6:11 AM
grumeazy grumeazy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Papa View Post
This doesnt show reduced? Beside the toc: it now shows N and M instead of F. That doesnt imply felony reduced to None and Misdemeanor?
Before:
Attachment 623669

After:
Attachment 623670
This is hard to figure out because the 17b is changing your charge from a Felony to Mis. With prop 64 the actual law you violated and were charged is now not even a law anymore and the code section is entirely different. It's confusing to say the least.

sent from the internets
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 07-19-2017, 6:49 AM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 1,113
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I know nothing of this matter, just an outside comment/thought: wouldn't the "disposition unknown" raise a flag?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 07-19-2017, 7:16 AM
The Papa's Avatar
The Papa The Papa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 432
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

ajb78- it also says charge not specified. Which by the way, shows exactly the same way where I had another different misdemeanor charge reduced as well. The DOJ should have received notification on May 17, 2017 or soon thereafter, via electronic transfer from my local superior court that case number Sc###### and BF###### (SC and BF only being 1 case) were reduced to misdemeanors via HS 11361.8(F) and then subsequently dismissed per 1203.4 which, to me at least, is clearly reflected to be the case here.

Now... if I could find some information as to "HOW" the DOJ reviews a rap sheet and looks for amended charges during a DROS process then that may give me more clarity or understanding as to if this is actually amended or not.

Last edited by The Papa; 07-19-2017 at 7:48 AM.. Reason: added... via HS11361.8(F) for future clarity
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 07-19-2017, 7:22 AM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 1,113
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Fair enough, just curious as things with unknown dispositions can cause a DROS to go into delay status while the research the disposition.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 07-19-2017, 9:12 AM
guile guile is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellon View Post
Supervisor told me that yes my record shows the reduction, but the DOJ is not recognizing Prop 64 reductions for firearms. I asked for a copy of the document that states this and she couldn't provide one. She kept saying that my charge was too old and the reduction only applies to offenses after November 2015. Clearly they are trying to apply the language of Prop 47 that strictly prohibits firearms rights restorations whereas Prop 64 is for all purposes. Extremely frustrating, re-DROS'd today. An attorney from DOJ was supposed to contact me. That will be 2 weeks ago on Tuesday. Will begin my annoying phone calls again tomorrow morning. .
Have you found an update on this Kellon?

If the CA DOJ is not recognizing Prop 64 as a restoration of rights, then the only avenue seems to be to sue the CA DOJ and have the courts rein in on this.

I'm another Prop 64'er who was DROS Denied almost 4 months after my reduction was granted. However, I never received a letter (the one that is supposed to arrive within 2 weeks) from the CA DOJ regarding the reason behind my DROS Denial. I've sent 3 "Email Contacts" to the CA DOJ BOF through their "Contact Us" form on their website asking simply for my denial letter and only get the exact same pre-made dead-end response, so obviously it isn't really a route of contact (just like their telephone number).

However, I'm not quite sure if my specific case of DROS Denial was due to CA DOJ not recognizing Prop 64 or due to a court clerical error in my case disposition, since I immediately called the court and they claimed that whoever did the paperwork did not send it correctly to the DOJ, that because my case was older it had to be paper filed or sent with a different code or something. They claim to have fixed this now.

I think it is important that we find at least one case of someone successfully passing DROS after a Prop 64 reduction, since that would save time and money from having to sue the CA DOJ.

I've just finished my Live Scan Request and will wait for the results; if they come back with all "TOC:M" then I will re-DROS. If I fail again, I will assume that we will have no recourse but to take legal action against the CA DOJ. Obviously, this is a case that would be won, since the language in Prop 64 is exactly the same as 17(b) and the courts have already telegraphed that this restores firearms rights. ("Unlike Proposition 47, the redesignation does not preclude the right to own or possess firearms")
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 07-20-2017, 12:47 PM
The Papa's Avatar
The Papa The Papa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 432
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Just a heads up for all requesting your live scans for firearms eligibility purposes. Fill out form AB165 and send that in. If you just do a live scan for personal review that is not sufficient enough review. Just got off the phone with bureau of firearms and they asked what live scan I did. I told them I did a live scan for personal review to see if my amended charges had been updated. He stated I needed to fill out their form AB165 and send that in if I was looking to purchase a firearm.

http://calgunlaws.com/wp-content/upl...an-Service.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 07-20-2017, 5:09 PM
The Papa's Avatar
The Papa The Papa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 432
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

UPDATE: I finally received a letter from the DOJ dated June 28th (post dated July 17th for the record) stating the reason why I was denied my DROS on 06/23/17 and it reads:

Crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year. Any Federal, State or foreign offense for which the maximum penalty, whether or not imposed, is capital punishment or imprisonment in excess of 1 year (The term shall not include any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of 2 years or less) See 27 CFR 478.11

The first DROS I was denied on March 24, 2017 read:

Felon: Any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of the United States, of the State of California, or of any other state, government, or country.

So what does this mean? I did fill out the form attached to the letter which is an AB165 (form BOF 8016RR) today, prior to even receiving this letter, which is basically a live scan for the purpose of firearms eligibility.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 07-20-2017, 5:13 PM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 1,113
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Federal denial?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 07-20-2017, 6:09 PM
Dilexi's Avatar
Dilexi Dilexi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Oregon
Posts: 146
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Papa View Post
UPDATE: I finally received a letter from the DOJ dated June 28th (post dated July 17th for the record) stating the reason why I was denied my DROS on 06/23/17 and it reads:

Crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year. Any Federal, State or foreign offense for which the maximum penalty, whether or not imposed, is capital punishment or imprisonment in excess of 1 year (The term shall not include any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of 2 years or less) See 27 CFR 478.11

The first DROS I was denied on March 24, 2017 read:

Felon: Any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of the United States, of the State of California, or of any other state, government, or country.

So what does this mean? I did fill out the form attached to the letter which is an AB165 (form BOF 8016RR) today, prior to even receiving this letter, which is basically a live scan for the purpose of firearms eligibility.
Suggestion:
Talk to a lawyer of your choice. Way to complicated!
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 07-20-2017, 6:32 PM
The Papa's Avatar
The Papa The Papa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 432
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajb78 View Post
Federal denial?
It's possible that the Feds are not recognizing THE LAW of Prop 64.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilexi View Post
Suggestion:
Talk to a lawyer of your choice. Way to complicated!
1. You're new here
2. You're here to learn more about Prop 64 and restoring your firearm rights.
3. You're facing the same exact thing I and many others are facing now regarding how DOJ and the FBI is going to react to this new CA law.

Would you like for me to call my attorney and go about this on my own and keep to myself? Maybe I'm reading you wrong tonight and if so I'm sorry but I feel like many of us are relying on each other for direction, advise, past experiences, future expectations as well as what's working and what's not. If we have to get an attorney then so be it.

But the way I, and many attorneys, see Prop 64 is that CLEARLY there's no restrictions on restoring ones firearm rights. The HS11359 you were charged with years ago is no longer a felony (in other words an inadmissible felony crime) which means you're no longer a felon since you have successfully petitioned the courts. So tell me.... why are you still being treated as a felon when the guy 30 minutes ago charged with HS11359 can walk into a gun store tonight and face ZERO consequences and have his gun in 10 days. What are we going to do about it? What can we do about it? Wouldn't we all like to know?

Rant over... time for an ice cream bar! Peace Dilexi!
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 07-20-2017, 8:42 PM
Dilexi's Avatar
Dilexi Dilexi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Oregon
Posts: 146
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Papa View Post
It's possible that the Feds are not recognizing THE LAW of Prop 64.



1. You're new here
2. You're here to learn more about Prop 64 and restoring your firearm rights.
3. You're facing the same exact thing I and many others are facing now regarding how DOJ and the FBI is going to react to this new CA law.

Would you like for me to call my attorney and go about this on my own and keep to myself? Maybe I'm reading you wrong tonight and if so I'm sorry but I feel like many of us are relying on each other for direction, advise, past experiences, future expectations as well as what's working and what's not. If we have to get an attorney then so be it.

But the way I, and many attorneys, see Prop 64 is that CLEARLY there's no restrictions on restoring ones firearm rights. The HS11359 you were charged with years ago is no longer a felony (in other words an inadmissible felony crime) which means you're no longer a felon since you have successfully petitioned the courts. So tell me.... why are you still being treated as a felon when the guy 30 minutes ago charged with HS11359 can walk into a gun store tonight and face ZERO consequences and have his gun in 10 days. What are we going to do about it? What can we do about it? Wouldn't we all like to know?

Rant over... time for an ice cream bar! Peace Dilexi!
New here correct!
What I 've learned?
Prop 64 is in flux!
I have been in the DOJ criminal system 22 years
The new guy who faces ZERO consequences, is not me.
I do not know where the answers are......all I can do is wait.
I m frustrated too.
Peace and good luck!
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 7:07 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.