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
  #601  
Old 10-18-2012, 9:37 AM
SunTzu's Avatar
SunTzu SunTzu is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 75
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Filed on 10-3-12 by the Feds. http://www.madison-society.org/pdfs/enos-v-holder.pdf
I have only skimmed but I am amazed that the Feds quote Skoien saying Ca has a restoration method and plaintiffs have failed to argue that 1023.4 doesn't restore their rights.
Reply With Quote
  #602  
Old 10-18-2012, 9:59 AM
Lex Arma's Avatar
Lex Arma Lex Arma is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 337
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SunTzu View Post
Filed on 10-3-12 by the Feds. http://www.madison-society.org/pdfs/enos-v-holder.pdf
I have only skimmed but I am amazed that the Feds quote Skoien saying Ca has a restoration method and plaintiffs have failed to argue that 1023.4 doesn't restore their rights.
please recheck your date. that is trial court filing from 2011!
__________________
Donald Kilmer (Lex Arma) - Reason or force - when the first fails, the second becomes inevitable.

If civic virtu does not reside in the people - no constitution, no bill of rights, no legislative body and no court will be able to preserve our liberties.

Although I am a lawyer, NONE of my posts on this website are to be construed as legal advice. NONE!

P.S. I get the top bunk.
Reply With Quote
  #603  
Old 10-18-2012, 10:01 AM
SunTzu's Avatar
SunTzu SunTzu is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 75
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Holy cow I'm getting old. My apologies. Keep up the good work; and can you recommend some good reading glasses?
Reply With Quote
  #604  
Old 10-18-2012, 11:14 AM
chris1911's Avatar
chris1911 chris1911 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: The Meeting Place
Posts: 4,064
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SunTzu View Post
Holy cow I'm getting old. My apologies. Keep up the good work; and can you recommend some good reading glasses?
http://www.pacificcoastsunglasses.co...z/products/11/
__________________
"I like to think there are three measures of a man: How much steak he can eat in one sitting, how full his mustache is and how quickly he can whittle a spear in the event of the apocalypse." - Ron Swanson

Quote:
Originally Posted by Champ Kind
I believe if Jesus owned a sidearm he wouldn't have been crucified.
Reply With Quote
  #605  
Old 10-24-2012, 5:15 PM
mobileglass mobileglass is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 46
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default I dont like the evolution of this case!

Don K,

Why does the argument seem to keep changing and narrowing down in scope over this whole process. It seems it would evolve, which essentially it is, but not so much with an overall argument over the broad aspect of Constitutionality. Each new document is radically different from the next! It seems weak when the original claims are not included in the newest briefs; it is as if you're reaching for something to hold on to, as if the case is drowning.
IMO!
Reply With Quote
  #606  
Old 12-02-2012, 9:19 AM
2ASupporter 2ASupporter is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 13
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Are there any further updates to this case?
Reply With Quote
  #607  
Old 12-03-2012, 7:42 PM
M107A1 M107A1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 43
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ASupporter View Post
Are there any further updates to this case?
My guess is that it is going to be at least a few more months before a court date is even set on the calender.
Reply With Quote
  #608  
Old 12-07-2012, 8:14 PM
lordvader lordvader is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 52
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Why is it taking so long to set a date?
Reply With Quote
  #609  
Old 12-11-2012, 8:02 PM
M107A1 M107A1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 43
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lordvader View Post
Why is it taking so long to set a date?
It seems like this is a typical timeline for an appeal case. At this point, nothing out of the ordinary.
Reply With Quote
  #610  
Old 12-11-2012, 8:28 PM
speleogist speleogist is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 211
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sreiter View Post
Had a ex i was still seeing while she had another guy. He got pissed. She lied and said i was stalking her. He told her to get a R.O.

She goes to file, clerk TELLS HER write down he hit you! She said he didn't. CLERK SAYS write it anyway, its easier to win that way.

I go to court with all kinds of proof, like her love letters to me during the time i'm supposedly stalking her, friends who saw her come over to my house, etc.

Didnt matter. FEMALE judge grants RO

I think you're bending the truth with this one.
Reply With Quote
  #611  
Old 12-12-2012, 9:11 PM
bayjed bayjed is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Firearm restrictions on RO's is entirely different issue as well. I am not saying it is right when they are giving them out so easily, but he can stay the hell away from her and when the RO expires he gets his guns back. A lifetime ban over a misdemeanor that is over 10 years old that has been dismissed by the court is an entirely different degree of unfairness. Especialy when you consider the fact that if someone is convicted of a felony DV charge, for something truely violent, that they are able to restore their rights. Yet, someone who grabs the keys out of their spouses hands gets banned for life.
Reply With Quote
  #612  
Old 12-15-2012, 6:08 PM
M107A1 M107A1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 43
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

First, my condolences to the victims of recent shootings. Now there is an outcry for strict gun control in light of the shootings. So far I haven't heard anyone point out that the shooter in the Connecticut shooting was only 20 years old and not even eligible to own a gun legally in Connecticut. It appears that people are attacking things like mental health and not looking into how he got his hands on the guns in the first place. Petitions have been filed for more strict gun policies and regulations but it is one thing to try to implement gun control and another thing to try to gauge how likely a person is to allow the gun that he/she purchases to end up in the hands of someone who is mentally ill or not even able to legally purchase a gun (child endangerment). The likely outcome of all of this is that there may be more gun control which may make it harder for many 2nd amendment cases that are currently being litigated to have judgements in favor of the 2nd amendment.
Reply With Quote
  #613  
Old 12-28-2012, 5:17 PM
M107A1 M107A1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 43
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Fisher v. Kealoha which is currently being litigated in the 9th Circuit as well is a similar case to Enos v. Holder that involves intepretation of the Lautenberg Amendment (harassment as opposed to an actual act of physical violence). The arguments in the case seems to be very similar to Don Kilmer's argument in Enos v. Holder.
Reply With Quote
  #614  
Old 01-20-2013, 9:09 AM
BigBamBoo's Avatar
BigBamBoo BigBamBoo is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Redding,CA.
Posts: 3,655
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

Can someone clarify this for me?
I ran into someone I know in a local gun store buying a shotgun the other day. He was convicted of FELONY DV in 2000 or 2001 during a messy divorce and child custody battle.

I asked him how he was able to purchase a firearm and he told me he had had his original DV charge "expunged" ( 17(b) and 1203.4 ) right after he completed his probation and since it was over 10 years he can now buy guns again.

????....Am I missing something? Is the Lautenberg Amendment strictly for misdemeanor DV...meaning it is BETTER to get a felony DV because you can restore your gun rights via 17(b) and 1203.4, or did he maybe get convicted of some other type of felony wobbler and only thinks it was a DV conviction?

Thanks
__________________
Bring hay for my horse....wine for my men....and mud for my turtle!

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
- Sigmund Freud

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
It makes it bigger and longer.
Reply With Quote
  #615  
Old 01-20-2013, 11:31 AM
mobileglass mobileglass is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 46
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

If it was classified as a DV relationship, he should not be able to, even if he was allowed to plea down to a misdemeanor; especially with Title 18 in force by the states that chose to enforce federal laws. However, there seems to be something missing in your info. that would help clarify the technicalities of these ambiguous and unconstitutional laws, specifically in this individual question.
Also they are different codes and 17b is not a subsection of 1203.4.
1203.4 is for misdemeanors.
17b is for felonies that will be reduced to a misdemeanor.
If the Felony conviction had DV elements, possibly it was dropped to a misdemeanor that is not subject to DV restrictions. For example it could be reduced to a PC section not associated with DV, yet still a misdemeanor.
From what I gather, You would first follow the PC 17b guidelines and then see if you are still restricted by the plea and need to use 1203.4.
1203.4 specifically states that its relief does not reinstate the right to own or possess a firearm. So, basically the answer to your question is, YES. A blatant attack on misdemeanors. One person at a time restriction is so easy to enforce, it specifically was more intended to disarm blacks; those with high crime rates, etc.
This explains why the ENOS V HOLDER case has gone so far; and IMO will end up at the Supreme Court; because no other justices in any court will rule on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of this law that passed so UN-democraticlly in 1994-1996 by Senator Lautenberg and the whole complacent US Senate, US President, and especially the US House that allowed their bull to be amended in the Senate and not sent back to the House with MULTIPLE AMENDMENTS such as the Title 18 inclusion.
I'm getting fired up......

Maybe we can pass a law to upgrade MCDV to Felonies then 17b it so we can restore this right to own a firearm!

Last edited by mobileglass; 01-20-2013 at 12:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #616  
Old 01-21-2013, 8:58 AM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,060
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mobileglass View Post
If it was classified as a DV relationship, he should not be able to, even if he was allowed to plea down to a misdemeanor; especially with Title 18 in force by the states that chose to enforce federal laws. However, there seems to be something missing in your info. that would help clarify the technicalities of these ambiguous and unconstitutional laws, specifically in this individual question.
Also they are different codes and 17b is not a subsection of 1203.4.
1203.4 is for misdemeanors.
17b is for felonies that will be reduced to a misdemeanor.
If the Felony conviction had DV elements, possibly it was dropped to a misdemeanor that is not subject to DV restrictions. For example it could be reduced to a PC section not associated with DV, yet still a misdemeanor.
From what I gather, You would first follow the PC 17b guidelines and then see if you are still restricted by the plea and need to use 1203.4.
1203.4 specifically states that its relief does not reinstate the right to own or possess a firearm. So, basically the answer to your question is, YES. A blatant attack on misdemeanors. One person at a time restriction is so easy to enforce, it specifically was more intended to disarm blacks; those with high crime rates, etc.
This explains why the ENOS V HOLDER case has gone so far; and IMO will end up at the Supreme Court; because no other justices in any court will rule on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of this law that passed so UN-democraticlly in 1994-1996 by Senator Lautenberg and the whole complacent US Senate, US President, and especially the US House that allowed their bull to be amended in the Senate and not sent back to the House with MULTIPLE AMENDMENTS such as the Title 18 inclusion.
I'm getting fired up......

Maybe we can pass a law to upgrade MCDV to Felonies then 17b it so we can restore this right to own a firearm!
QFT.

This issue needs to be fixed. Look for misdemeanor lifetime bans to be secretly snuck into "must pass" bills in the near future.
__________________
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
  #617  
Old 01-28-2013, 10:05 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,060
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Don Kilmer will be speaking in San Jose this Thursday.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...9#post10353319
__________________
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
  #618  
Old 01-29-2013, 11:15 AM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,211
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyca View Post
This issue needs to be fixed. Look for misdemeanor lifetime bans to be secretly snuck into "must pass" bills in the near future.
You think they're going to make misdemeanors, generally, be disqualifying acts?
Reply With Quote
  #619  
Old 01-29-2013, 5:02 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,060
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by getlost View Post
Was reading up on expungements and found it interesting that New Jersey allows for expungement of misdemeanor DV convictions to restore 2nd A rights.
Do you have a link?
__________________
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
  #620  
Old 01-29-2013, 5:03 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,060
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
You think they're going to make misdemeanors, generally, be disqualifying acts?
Why wouldn't they try?
__________________
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
  #621  
Old 01-30-2013, 3:29 PM
getlost getlost is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyca View Post
Do you have a link?
I stand corrected anthonyca.

The federal law still applies even if expunged.
Reply With Quote
  #622  
Old 01-30-2013, 4:16 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,211
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyca View Post
Why wouldn't they try?
I didn't think them to be that crazy, but yes, you're right they could indeed try.
Reply With Quote
  #623  
Old 01-31-2013, 10:57 PM
mobileglass mobileglass is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 46
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by getlost View Post
I stand corrected anthonyca.

The federal law still applies even if expunged.

If State law says your rights are returned then Title 18 can not and does not apply. That is how they are interpreting it as of @04. Interesting that Congress says nothing about how their laws are interpreted.
If you posted something false you should remove it!
Reply With Quote
  #624  
Old 01-31-2013, 11:03 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,060
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mobileglass View Post
If State law says your rights are returned then Title 18 can not and does not apply. That is how they are interpreting it as of @04. Interesting that Congress says nothing about how their laws are interpreted.
If you posted something false you should remove it!
That is precisely the argument in Enos. California returned 2nd amendment rights and the feds are saying FU. I went to hear Don Kilmer speak tonight and he brought up that fact.
__________________
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
  #625  
Old 02-03-2013, 2:00 PM
dad's Avatar
dad dad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 870
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyca View Post
Do you have a link?
Read this one carefully, from Tennessee, if you haven't read it already!
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Tennessee DV.pdf (94.7 KB, 65 views)
__________________
A nation of sheep, breeds a government of wolves!
Reply With Quote
  #626  
Old 02-08-2013, 10:34 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,060
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dad View Post
Read this one carefully, from Tennessee, if you haven't read it already!
Maybee I missed it, I am really tired. How does that pertain to Fed law?
__________________
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
  #627  
Old 02-09-2013, 1:54 AM
monkeshine monkeshine is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 50
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
You think they're going to make misdemeanors, generally, be disqualifying acts?
They would make parking tickets disqualifying acts if they could.
Reply With Quote
  #628  
Old 02-09-2013, 8:42 AM
acarlson270 acarlson270 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: bay area
Posts: 3
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Looking around the Internet and it seems this topic has lost it's steam. Looks like all cards are being played in the Enos vs Holder case.
Reply With Quote
  #629  
Old 02-09-2013, 9:10 AM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,060
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by acarlson270 View Post
Looking around the Internet and it seems this topic has lost it's steam. Looks like all cards are being played in the Enos vs Holder case.
This is the best case so far and it is being litigated by one of the best second amendment lawyers in the country. If you are interested, please donate to the Madison Society Foundation.
__________________
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
  #630  
Old 02-09-2013, 2:23 PM
lordvader lordvader is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 52
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I would like to know how the guy with the DV buying the shotgun was able to buy his firearm. What did he file so he can do that?
Reply With Quote
  #631  
Old 02-09-2013, 6:40 PM
mobileglass mobileglass is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 46
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyca View Post
Maybee I missed it, I am really tired. How does that pertain to Fed law?

Because it seems Tennessee is not allowing Title 18 to be enforced in that state!
Reply With Quote
  #632  
Old 02-10-2013, 1:12 PM
dad's Avatar
dad dad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 870
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyca View Post
Maybee I missed it, I am really tired. How does that pertain to Fed law?
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/misd...fore-judgement

I do not have extra money to attempt a gun purchase! I'm not going to buy "any gun", just to see if I can get a gun or not! $400.00 saved, but I have about $600.00 to go!

Plus I sent off for my record(rap sheet), I think it was $18.00 to get it! It states "dismissed"!

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/background-checks
__________________
A nation of sheep, breeds a government of wolves!

Last edited by dad; 02-11-2013 at 5:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #633  
Old 02-10-2013, 8:42 PM
scarville's Avatar
scarville scarville is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Glendora, CA
Posts: 2,300
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
I didn't think them to be that crazy, but yes, you're right they could indeed try.
After that they will make too many traffic tickets a lifetime disqualification.
__________________
Politicians and criminals are moral twins separated only by legal fiction.
Reply With Quote
  #634  
Old 02-11-2013, 2:11 PM
Freeway's Avatar
Freeway Freeway is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Olathe, KS
Posts: 21
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mobileglass View Post
Because it seems Tennessee is not allowing Title 18 to be enforced in that state!
Then how does Tennessee handle the 4473 form?
Reply With Quote
  #635  
Old 02-11-2013, 5:30 PM
dad's Avatar
dad dad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 870
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeway View Post
Then how does Tennessee handle the 4473 form?
It's the same nation wide! Read my posts thru out this thread!!>>>I mistakingly put the same links in post #632, read the "top link"!




http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
__________________
A nation of sheep, breeds a government of wolves!

Last edited by dad; 02-11-2013 at 5:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #636  
Old 02-11-2013, 5:40 PM
Khyber's Avatar
Khyber Khyber is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 237
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

This is for the domestic violence misdemeanor ban to be reversed correct?

I had a buddy get his felony down to a misdemeanor during his early termination for probation; the felony charge was a wobbler, but the charge was also not a domestic violence charge. A month later the DOJ approved his dros and was a legal gun owner again.
__________________
"We're all in the same game, just different levels. Dealing with the same hell, just different devils."
Reply With Quote
  #637  
Old 02-12-2013, 5:03 PM
lordvader lordvader is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 52
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Does anyone know what can be done so far? I've read two different issues of dv where a guy can still buy firearms in Ca.
Reply With Quote
  #638  
Old 02-18-2013, 9:44 AM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,060
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lordvader View Post
Does anyone know what can be done so far? I've read two different issues of dv where a guy can still buy firearms in Ca.
What are these instances?
__________________
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
  #639  
Old 03-05-2013, 4:45 PM
lordvader lordvader is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 52
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Ive read BigBamBoo and one other on a person can still buy firearms after a dv charge.
Reply With Quote
  #640  
Old 03-25-2013, 5:53 PM
lordvader lordvader is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 52
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Does anyone have an answer to my question?
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 8:01 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.