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
  #121  
Old 07-21-2017, 12:04 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 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeepFiend View Post
That record doesn't reflect the reduction and will likely not restore firearm rights....
JeepFiend is correct. After consulting with an attorney regarding his firms experience with Prop 64 and restoring gun rights, and showing him my records of what I have thus far, here is his response...

Problem: DOJ is LAME. They amended your record to show a 1203.4 but they failed to also enter the reduction! You need to use the last sheet on your most recent DOJ report to file for a correction. I've seen this LOTS lately...

So I'll send records to DOJ asking them to fix it.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 07-21-2017, 12:21 PM
JeepFiend's Avatar
JeepFiend JeepFiend is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Bryan, TX
Posts: 155
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Bummer! But keep at it, remember later is still better than never!
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 07-25-2017, 5:26 AM
grumeazy grumeazy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by losangeleno View Post
grumeazy, I contacted my local State Senator's office in my jurisdiction who thru their "direct channels" were able to contact DOJ records review on my behalf to request they update my record to show the amended conviction & also request they update my FBI (CJIS) criminal record in regards to also update the record with the info from CA. DOJ. FBI (CJIS) can only update their criminal data if Ca. DOJ notifies them with the updated info. That said, today i spoke with the rep. at FBI (CJIS) who informed me my record now reflects the new updated & amended disposition of my HS11359 mj sales conviction. So yes , it took just over a week for Ca. doj to inform the FBI. I pretty much spoke indirectly to Ca. DOJ through my senators rep. Now i DROS and hope to either purchase or get a "undetermined" status. I was able to find a dealer in So cal that releases on an undetermined. If denied I will then possibly Sue (costing **** tons) or appeal either DOJ (state) or NICS (Feds) with an attorney.
Hmm so I'll have to get DOJ to update FBI you say? Who is your sen?

sent from the internets
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 07-25-2017, 2:15 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,738
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by losangeleno View Post
grumeazy, I contacted my local State Senator's office in my jurisdiction who thru their "direct channels" were able to contact DOJ records review on my behalf to request they update my record to show the amended conviction & also request they update my FBI (CJIS) criminal record in regards to also update the record with the info from CA. DOJ. FBI (CJIS) can only update their criminal data if Ca. DOJ notifies them with the updated info. That said, today i spoke with the rep. at FBI (CJIS) who informed me my record now reflects the new updated & amended disposition of my HS11359 mj sales conviction. So yes , it took just over a week for Ca. doj to inform the FBI. I pretty much spoke indirectly to Ca. DOJ through my senators rep. Now i DROS and hope to either purchase or get a "undetermined" status. I was able to find a dealer in So cal that releases on an undetermined. If denied I will then possibly Sue (costing **** tons) or appeal either DOJ (state) or NICS (Feds) with an attorney.
Damn. A California state senator's office that did something to help you get a gun and kicked but at the DOJ. Give the Senator credit.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 07-26-2017, 5:21 AM
grumeazy grumeazy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by losangeleno View Post
Yup.
You must be freaking overjoyed. You gonna dros soon?

sent from the internets

Last edited by grumeazy; 07-26-2017 at 5:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 07-30-2017, 12:05 AM
losangeleno losangeleno is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Los Angeles,California
Posts: 579
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
Also make sure CA. DOJ also updates your FBI(CJIS) criminal history of the amended conviction after the reduction is amended on the state criminal record. FBI(CJIS) can only make changes and adjustments if CA.DOJ notifies them of such changes. Ask your local senator to help you with this process. I did & it helped me a ton to avoid more red tape and run around.

Last edited by losangeleno; 07-30-2017 at 12:16 AM.. Reason: zxzxcx
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 07-30-2017, 9:18 PM
losangeleno losangeleno is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Los Angeles,California
Posts: 579
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
But what i'd really like to know is has RGB Law Firm been able to actually RESTORE ones right to possess and purchase firearms through prop64 after a Judgement of reduction has been granted by a superior court in California.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 07-31-2017, 5:50 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
But what i'd really like to know is has RGB Law Firm been able to actually RESTORE ones right to possess and purchase firearms through prop64 after a Judgement of reduction has been granted by a superior court in California.
I emailed him and he's the one that said my live scan was reported inaccurate and that he's seen this ALOT from the DOJ lately. I appreciated his honesty and help and sensed he too is a little frustrated with the way Prop 64 is being recorded. He did not say if they have indeed fully restored ones rights that was a prop 64 recipient.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 07-31-2017, 9:33 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 losangeleno View Post
But what i'd really like to know is has RGB Law Firm been able to actually RESTORE ones right to possess and purchase firearms through prop64 after a Judgement of reduction has been granted by a superior court in California.
I presume RGB, has been successful restoring Prop 64, guns rights.
You can always email him and ask. RBG, did not charge me for a Prop 64 question. This guy is not your common lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 07-31-2017, 1:37 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
I presume RGB, has been successful restoring Prop 64, guns rights.
You can always email him and ask. RBG, did not charge me for a Prop 64 question. This guy is not your common lawyer.
I agree. Very very helpful and responded quickly to the numerous questions I sent him.

Last edited by The Papa; 07-31-2017 at 8:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 07-31-2017, 2:26 PM
Paul S's Avatar
Paul S Paul S is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 1,798
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumeazy View Post
I'm confident it will, just going to take time actually getting my record updated.

sent from the internets
And therein lies the problem. This forum is loaded with issues similar to yours with members crying the blues 5--10 years later because despite the alleged court action the felony reduction/expungement was never recorded by DOJ. And to add insult to injury these forum members never thought to get copies and or save the court paper work.

It reads as though you have carefully monitored the situation and have the proper documentation. Now...your main chore is to hound DOJ with the court order to make sure it is properly recorded in the DOJ's CI&I data base. That can be and often is a tough nut to crack. DOJ has a long track record of just losing and/or ignoring such court directives.
Good luck to you sir.
__________________
Paul S
“Cogito, ergo armatum sum: I think, therefore I am armed.” - Collection of Quotes - Lt. Col. Dave Grossman
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 08-01-2017, 3:28 PM
Kellon Kellon is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 51
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Still no guns... I've been calling the DOJ number 1 (916) 227-1375 every week since June 28th. I leave a message every week for Naomi she is the unit supervisor. Not a single call back. Spoke to a different receptionist today she is telling me that since the original felony was a straight felony and not a wobbler the reduction doesn't qualify for firearms. Currently I believe this is the problem the DOJ is recording it like a reduction and not a reclassification. I have been corresponding with Lt. Governor Newsom's office and hoping they will be able to break through. I also emailed the attorney generals office for clarification on what they believe the prop 64 should do. Haven't heard back yet. I urge everyone reading this to contact your senators, assemblymen, and Lt. Governors offices. Hopefully enough pressure will break through. I have spoken to multiple attorneys and most will gladly take your money for the reclassification piece, but nobody wants to deal with the DOJ end of it. I've also made it very clear to these attorneys that I've got the funds for it. Anyone who is paying an attorney for this needs to make sure that it is stipulated that they will get you your gun rights back and will see the case through. I am currently working on filing a writ of mandate with the court that approved my reclassification. I was able to go to the range before and shoot no problem, but after my third failed DROS I've been asked not to come in until this is cleared up, I 100% understand their reasoning and am glad they do this.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 08-01-2017, 3:33 PM
grumeazy grumeazy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellon View Post
Still no guns... I've been calling the DOJ number 1 (916) 227-1375 every week since June 28th. I leave a message every week for Naomi she is the unit supervisor. Not a single call back. Spoke to a different receptionist today she is telling me that since the original felony was a straight felony and not a wobbler the reduction doesn't qualify for firearms. Currently I believe this is the problem the DOJ is recording it like a reduction and not a reclassification. I have been corresponding with Lt. Governor Newsom's office and hoping they will be able to break through. I also emailed the attorney generals office for clarification on what they believe the prop 64 should do. Haven't heard back yet. I urge everyone reading this to contact your senators, assemblymen, and Lt. Governors offices. Hopefully enough pressure will break through. I have spoken to multiple attorneys and most will gladly take your money for the reclassification piece, but nobody wants to deal with the DOJ end of it. I've also made it very clear to these attorneys that I've got the funds for it. Anyone who is paying an attorney for this needs to make sure that it is stipulated that they will get you your gun rights back and will see the case through. I am currently working on filing a writ of mandate with the court that approved my reclassification. I was able to go to the range before and shoot no problem, but after my third failed DROS I've been asked not to come in until this is cleared up, I 100% understand their reasoning and am glad they do this.
There will be nothing anyone can do until there is a suit filed against the DOJ and case law is established.

sent from the internets
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 08-01-2017, 3:56 PM
The Papa's Avatar
The Papa The Papa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 432
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

What I don't get is that the charges that were once felonies are now only misdemeanors making those past charges "invalid" and would not be admissible in court. Thank you Kellon for your efforts. My AB165 form was processed on Monday so I'm hoping its in my mailbox when I get home.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 08-01-2017, 4:03 PM
grumeazy grumeazy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Papa View Post
What I don't get is that the charges that were once felonies are now only misdemeanors making those past charges "invalid" and would not be admissible in court. Thank you Kellon for your efforts. My AB165 form was processed on Monday so I'm hoping its in my mailbox when I get home.
You could commit the same crime today, get convicted, go buy a gun. It's the DOJ doing what they want because they can. The only way for things to change is for some case law to be established. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a class action suit. Obviously nothing in the near future but I'm sure something will happen sooner or later.

sent from the internets
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 08-01-2017, 7:29 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
What I don't get is that the charges that were once felonies are now only misdemeanors making those past charges "invalid" and would not be admissible in court. Thank you Kellon for your efforts. My AB165 form was processed on Monday so I'm hoping its in my mailbox when I get home.
It appears your gun rights will be restored very soon!
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 08-01-2017, 8:31 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
It appears your gun rights will be restored very soon!
They will either say yes or no based on what's been recorded. I'm hoping some of my appeals documents I have sent them have been seen and recorded and I just don't know it yet. But there was nothing in the mailbox today. I have not allowed my hopes to get too high. I'm still waiting to get a response on my NICS appeal as well.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 08-02-2017, 10:08 AM
JeepFiend's Avatar
JeepFiend JeepFiend is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Bryan, TX
Posts: 155
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Unfortunately, until you get the state to recognize the restoration of your gun rights, you're going to have a very tough time getting the feds to recognize the restoration. Because it's a state law in question, the state has the final word.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 08-02-2017, 1:37 PM
The Papa's Avatar
The Papa The Papa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 432
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

This is what the voters of California voted on and this is the way it reads. I obviously have highlighted the paragraphs and underlined those words which I deem necessary to prove the point that I need to make for my case and a few others here in this thread.

Here's an excerpt from the full text ofProp 64

Subdivision (a) of Section 11361.5 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:

11361.5. Destruction of arrest and conviction records; Procedure; Exceptions

(a) Records of any court of this state, any public or private agency that provides services upon referral under Section 1000.2 of the Penal Code, or of any state agency pertaining to the arrest or conviction of any person for a violation of subdivision (b), (c), (d), or (e) of Section 11357 or subdivision (b) of Section 11360, or pertaining to the arrest or conviction of any person under the age of 18 for a violation of any provision of this article except Section 11357.5, shall not be kept beyond two years from the date of the conviction, or from the date of the arrest if there was no conviction, except with respect to a violation of subdivision (ed) of Section 11357, or any other violation by a person under the age of 18 occurring upon the grounds of, or within, any school providing instruction in kindergarten or any of grades 1 through 12 during hours the school is open for classes or school-related programs, the records shall be retained until the offender attains the age of 18 years at which time the records shall be destroyed as provided in this section. Any court or agency having custody of the records, including the statewide criminal databases, shall provide for the timely destruction of the records in accordance with subdivision (c), and such records must also be purged from the statewide criminal databases. As used in this subdivision, “records pertaining to the arrest or conviction” shall include records of arrests resulting in the criminal proceeding and records relating to other offenses charged in the accusatory pleading, whether defendant was acquitted or charges were dismissed. The two-year period beyond which records shall not be kept pursuant to this subdivision shall not apply to any person who is, at the time at which this subdivision would otherwise require record destruction, incarcerated for an offense subject to this subdivision. For such persons, the two-year period shall begin to run from the date the person is released from custody. The requirements of this subdivision do not apply to records of any conviction occurring prior to January 1, 1976, or records of any arrest not followed by a conviction occurring prior to that date, or records of any arrest for an offense specified in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7, or subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code.

Section 11361.8 is added to the Health and Safety Code to read:

11361.8

(a) A person currently serving a sentence for a conviction, whether by trial or by open or negotiated plea, who would not have been guilty of an offense or who would have been guilty of a lesser offense under the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act had that Act been in effect at the time of the offense may petition for a recall or dismissal of sentence before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case to request resentencing or dismissal in accordance with Sections 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11362.1, 11362.2, 11362.3, and 11362.4 as those sections have been amended or added by this Act.

(b) Upon receiving a petition under subdivision (a), the court shall presume the petitioner satisfies the criteria in subdivision (a) unless the party opposing the petition proves by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner does not satisfy the criteria. If the petitioner satisfies the criteria in subdivision (a), the court shall grant the petition to recall the sentence or dismiss the sentence because it is legally invalid unless the court determines that granting the petition would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.
(1) In exercising its discretion, the court may consider, but shall not be limited to evidence provided for in subdivision (b) of Section 1170.18 of the Penal Code.
(2) As used in this section, “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” has the same meaning as provided in subdivision (c) of Section 1170.18 of the Penal Code.

(c) A person who is serving a sentence and resentenced pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be given credit for any time already served and shall be subject to supervision for one year following completion of his or her time in custody or shall be subject to whatever supervision time he or she would have otherwise been subject to after release, whichever is shorter, unless the court, in its discretion, as part of its resentencing order, releases the person from supervision. Such person is subject to parole supervision under Penal Code Section 3000.08 or post-release community supervision under subdivision (a) of Section 3451 of the Penal Code by the designated agency and the jurisdiction of the court in the county in which the offender is released or resides, or in which an alleged violation of supervision has occurred, for the purpose of hearing petitions to revoke supervision and impose a term of custody.

(d) Under no circumstances may resentencing under this section result in the imposition of a term longer than the original sentence, or the reinstatement of charges dismissed pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement.

(e) A person who has completed his or her sentence for a conviction under Sections 11357, 11358, 11359, and 11360, whether by trial or open or negotiated plea, who would not have been guilty of an offense or who would have been guilty of a lesser offense under the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act had that Act been in effect at the time of the offense, may file an application before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case to have the conviction dismissed and sealed because the prior conviction is now legally invalid or redesignated as a misdemeanor or infraction in accordance with Sections 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11362.1, 11362.2, 11362.3, and 11362.4 as those sections have been amended or added by this Act.

(f) The court shall presume the petitioner satisfies the criteria in subdivision (e) unless the party opposing the application proves by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner does not satisfy the criteria in subdivision (e). Once the applicant satisfies the criteria in subdivision (e), the court shall redesignate the conviction as a misdemeanor or infraction or dismiss and seal the conviction as legally invalid as now established under the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act.

(g) Unless requested by the applicant, no hearing is necessary to grant or deny an application filed under subdivision (e).

(h) Any felony conviction that is recalled and resentenced under subdivision (b) or designated as a misdemeanor or infraction under subdivision (f) shall be considered a misdemeanor or infraction for all purposes. Any misdemeanor conviction that is recalled and resentenced under subdivision (b) or designated as an infraction under subdivision (f) shall be considered an infraction for all purposes.

Last edited by The Papa; 08-02-2017 at 1:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 08-03-2017, 12:09 PM
JeepFiend's Avatar
JeepFiend JeepFiend is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Bryan, TX
Posts: 155
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you and your argument. But until someone can get a PFEC affirming rights to purchase and possess firearms, I don't see much traction in the argument. A previous post noted that someone from CA DOJ told them that even with prop 64 they'd need a pardon. Obviously they haven't fully come to grips with their own law.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 08-03-2017, 12:14 PM
grumeazy grumeazy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeepFiend View Post
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you and your argument. But until someone can get a PFEC affirming rights to purchase and possess firearms, I don't see much traction in the argument. A previous post noted that someone from CA DOJ told them that even with prop 64 they'd need a pardon. Obviously they haven't fully come to grips with their own law.
My thoughts exactly. I totally agree and I believe they won't change thier policy until there is case law.

sent from the internets
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 08-03-2017, 2:30 PM
Redeyedrider's Avatar
Redeyedrider Redeyedrider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Auburn
Posts: 1,256
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Gorilla View Post
Years ago I had some issues over a sale on eBay. Long story but I ended up with a felony.
I'm in for the long story too
__________________
=TRUMP 2020=

Quote:
There is ALWAYS information that is not released to the public, that doesnt mean anyone is hiding anything - Citadelgrad87
Quote:
I try to frame my response to be useful to those observing, with little regard to convince the opponent of my awesomeness. - EM2
Quote:
But that wasn't enough for the liberal douches. They just had to go after the grandfathered mags... And look what it got them. - L84CABO
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 08-04-2017, 7:23 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
That women you spoke with at the DOJ was incorrect. Prop64 turns the conviction into wobbler which enables a reduction. She thinks the old law still holds. And she's not an attorney either.
I'm not sure that "wobbler" is the correct term either. Wobbler is used when there is potential for a felony charge but can be reduced to misdemeanor under terms. The felony charges that once were placed on HS11359 can only be charged as misdemeanors today! You could not be charged with a felony today if you were charged with an HS11359 for example. See below....

11361.8
(a) A person currently serving a sentence for a conviction, whether by trial or by open or negotiated plea, who would not have been guilty of an offense or who would have been guilty of a lesser offense under the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act had that Act been in effect at the time of the offense may petition for a recall or dismissal of sentence before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case to request resentencing or dismissal in accordance with Sections 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11362.1, 11362.2, 11362.3, and 11362.4 as those sections have been amended or added by this Act.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 08-04-2017, 7:48 AM
grumeazy grumeazy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Papa View Post
I'm not sure that "wobbler" is the correct term either. Wobbler is used when there is potential for a felony charge but can be reduced to misdemeanor under terms. The felony charges that once were placed on HS11359 can only be charged as misdemeanors today! You could not be charged with a felony today if you were charged with an HS11359 for example. See below....

11361.8
(a) A person currently serving a sentence for a conviction, whether by trial or by open or negotiated plea, who would not have been guilty of an offense or who would have been guilty of a lesser offense under the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act had that Act been in effect at the time of the offense may petition for a recall or dismissal of sentence before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case to request resentencing or dismissal in accordance with Sections 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11362.1, 11362.2, 11362.3, and 11362.4 as those sections have been amended or added by this Act.
It can still be a felony if certain conditions are met like prior charges, registered sex offender, etc.

The person has one or more prior convictions for an offense specified in clause (iv) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667 of the Penal Code or for an offense requiring registration pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290 of the Penal Code;

(2)*The person has two or more prior convictions under subdivision (b); or

(3)*The offense occurred in connection with the knowing sale or attempted sale of cannabis to a person under the age of 18 years.

(d)*Notwithstanding subdivision (b), a person 21 years of age or over who possesses cannabis for sale may be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code if the offense involves knowingly hiring, employing, or using a person 20 years of age or younger in unlawfully cultivating, transporting, carrying, selling, offering to sell, giving away, preparing for sale, or peddling any cannabis.



sent from the internets
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 08-04-2017, 8:03 AM
grumeazy grumeazy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

We need more attorneys like this guy. http://quinnanlaw.com/tag/gun-rights/
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 08-04-2017, 8:47 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,738
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Is there a problem caused by the rap sheet saying it is a per PC 1203.4(a), which I do not believe restores gun rights, if the dismissal was per H&S 11361.8?

If so, wouldn't transmission to the DOJ of a copy of the order certified by the clerk of the court clear this up? Papa may have done this already.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 08-04-2017, 9:13 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 grumeazy View Post
It can still be a felony if certain conditions are met like prior charges, registered sex offender, etc.

The person has one or more prior convictions for an offense specified in clause (iv) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667 of the Penal Code or for an offense requiring registration pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290 of the Penal Code;

(2)*The person has two or more prior convictions under subdivision (b); or

(3)*The offense occurred in connection with the knowing sale or attempted sale of cannabis to a person under the age of 18 years.

(d)*Notwithstanding subdivision (b), a person 21 years of age or over who possesses cannabis for sale may be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code if the offense involves knowingly hiring, employing, or using a person 20 years of age or younger in unlawfully cultivating, transporting, carrying, selling, offering to sell, giving away, preparing for sale, or peddling any cannabis.



sent from the internets
You are correct and I should have added "in most cases"

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumeazy View Post
We need more attorneys like this guy. http://quinnanlaw.com/tag/gun-rights/
Nice find! I'm sure he'll be getting some phone calls.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
Is there a problem caused by the rap sheet saying it is a per PC 1203.4(a), which I do not believe restores gun rights, if the dismissal was per H&S 11361.8?

If so, wouldn't transmission to the DOJ of a copy of the order certified by the clerk of the court clear this up? Papa may have done this already.
They have certified copies but like another attorney I emailed says and the attorney to the link above says... DOJ is not recording properly nor recognizing the new laws under PROP 64. I believe losangeleno has proof that his records (live scan) show it recorded correctly but still got denied.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 08-04-2017, 11:56 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 The Papa View Post
You are correct and I should have added "in most cases"



Nice find! I'm sure he'll be getting some phone calls.



They have certified copies but like another attorney I emailed says and the attorney to the link above says... DOJ is not recording properly nor recognizing the new laws under PROP 64. I believe losangeleno has proof that his records (live scan) show it recorded correctly but still got denied.
Prop 64 language is pretty clear.
The Papa's should he good to go.....acording to proper documentation. .The DOJ should allow his gun rights to be reinstated.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 08-04-2017, 1:05 PM
grumeazy grumeazy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilexi View Post
Prop 64 language is pretty clear.
The Papa's should he good to go.....acording to proper documentation. .The DOJ should allow his gun rights to be reinstated.
The DOJ will do what every they want. You will have to file a suit. This is from Kellon's interaction with DOJ:
"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"
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 08-04-2017, 1:53 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 grumeazy View Post
The DOJ will do what every they want. You will have to file a suit. This is from Kellon's interaction with DOJ:
"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"
If that's true?....Looks like Im screwed! Who can afford to take the DOJ to court? Not, I
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 08-04-2017, 4:22 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,738
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Don't tell me that the libs that pushed 64's passage will be so upset should it turn out that they have restored the right to possess firearms to thousands.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 08-04-2017, 5:50 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 Chewy65 View Post
Don't tell me that the libs that pushed 64's passage will be so upset should it turn out that they have restored the right to possess firearms to thousands.
I certainly hope so!
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 08-04-2017, 8:57 PM
The Papa's Avatar
The Papa The Papa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 432
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

No surprise here... received my live scan for eligibility to possess a firearm (Form AB165) which showed denied due to matching fingerprints to an existing California criminal history record. They sent me the same copy of the other live scan I just did a month or so ago. Also attached is a form to fill out for a "Claim of alleged inaccuracy or incompleteness".
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 08-05-2017, 2:05 AM
losangeleno losangeleno is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Los Angeles,California
Posts: 579
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

YEP. I also think when i get my ca. doj AB165 Live scan results back it's going to show the old UNamended disposition. In that case i would have to mail/fax certified copies of my
amended CA. & FED records. Hopefully that's what they are going to need. That being said from that point on they (DOJ BOF) would either overturn my denial, fail to recognize prop 64 wording, or simply ignore me. Then i would need to have a law firm step in.

Last edited by losangeleno; 08-05-2017 at 2:20 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 08-05-2017, 2:17 AM
losangeleno losangeleno is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Los Angeles,California
Posts: 579
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilexi View Post
Prop 64 language is pretty clear.
The Papa's should he good to go.....acording to proper documentation. .The DOJ should allow his gun rights to be reinstated.
SHOULD, but.....
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 08-05-2017, 9:58 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 losangeleno View Post
dem./lib. politicians and the state of ca. all knew that millions in prop64 pot revenue outway giving back civil rights. California is now the largest drug dealer in the nation.
West Coast, marijuana dealers. Washington, Oregon, Nevada and California.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 08-05-2017, 4:39 PM
chicopilot chicopilot is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 83
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Super happy to find this thread, nice to meet you guys. Thank you for all the work you've done figuring out the system and sharing all of your knowledge. I'm in the beginning of the battle, waiting to hear back from the court about a prop 64 reduction. I didn't even know this was an option until recently.

Anyway, this thread is very relevant to my situation so I'm appreciative that you guys are working through this and sharing it all.

I'm curious, I've seen it asked here earlier on this thread but is there anyone that has been able to successfully buy a firearm after getting the prop 64 reduction? The DOJ thing sounds problematic....

Thank you.

Last edited by chicopilot; 08-05-2017 at 7:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 08-05-2017, 5:52 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 chicopilot View Post
Super happy to find this thread, nice to meet you guys. Thank you for all the work you've done figuring out the system and sharing all of your knowledge. I'm in the beginning of the battle, waiting to hear back from the court about a prop 64 reduction. I didn't even know this was an option until recently.

Anyway, this thread is very relevant to my situation so I'm appreciate that you guys are working through this and sharing it all.

I'm curious, I've seen it asked here earlier on this thread but is there anyone that has been able to successfully buy a firearm after getting the prop 64 reduction? The DOJ thing sounds problematic....

Thank you.
Welcome
Several people are trying, but no one has been successful yet.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 08-06-2017, 7:33 AM
chicopilot chicopilot is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 83
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I obviously don't know how this works, but from everything I've read on this thread it sounds like there's a difference of opinion between a lot of people and the DOJ about whether a successful felony-to-misdemeanor prop 64 restores gun rights. And, that until this is decided in court by some kind of appeal or lawsuit against the DOJ, the DOJ will continue to reject it.

I'd imagine a lawsuit or appeal or whatever is already happening by SOMEone in the state...no?

Has there been any discussion of raising $ through some kind of GoFundMe mechanism to fund a lawsuit like this?
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 08-06-2017, 8:10 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 chicopilot View Post
I obviously don't know how this works, but from everything I've read on this thread it sounds like there's a difference of opinion between a lot of people and the DOJ about whether a successful felony-to-misdemeanor prop 64 restores gun rights. And, that until this is decided in court by some kind of appeal or lawsuit against the DOJ, the DOJ will continue to reject it.

I'd imagine a lawsuit or appeal or whatever is already happening by SOMEone in the state...no?

Has there been any discussion of raising $ through some kind of GoFundMe mechanism to fund a lawsuit like this?
I'm not sure what the DOJ is doing. My reduction was granted, 6/20/2017. It was suggested I wait a minimum of 90 days, before I try to purchase a gun. I m patiently waiting another few months......then "maybe" I will try and secure a gun. A gofundme account could be helpful, if the DOJ is slow playing us.
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 11:55 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.