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
  #321  
Old 09-08-2011, 10:18 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,171
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dad View Post
Are you saying the state of California does not recognize/accept expungements done in California courts?
The Feds don't. They did, now they don't. On a "will o whisp" of the law ( as quoted by Chief Justice Roberts in his decent in US V Hayes) the ATF made felons out of many cops and others who used California expungement to gain gun rights back.
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 09-12-2011, 5:47 PM
deprived of 2A deprived of 2A is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 73
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Enos vs. Holder

I am new to this forum, I didn't realize my rights were revoked until i tried to purchase a rifle a week and a half ago! I have a D.V. misdemeanor conviction from 20 years ago. No one told me back then if I take the plea deal i would lose my right to bear arms for life! the one and only time I have ever had criminal issues in my entire life I am stripped of a civil right? wow. I was young and no lawyer, they sent me back in a room with a D.A. and he basicly told me what i have to do to make this go away. Plead to it, it becomes a misdemeanor,3 years probation,counciling for a year,10 year ban for firearms and your done with it. All this for defending myself from being struck,(restrained the other party by the wrists left red marks and away I went) If this case wins will I be given my rights back or do I have to file a claim in court?
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 09-12-2011, 5:56 PM
ke6guj's Avatar
ke6guj ke6guj is offline
Moderator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 909
Posts: 23,544
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deprived of 2A View Post
. No one told me back then if I take the plea deal i would lose my right to bear arms for life!
that is because the law that implemented that lifetime ban wasn't passed until ~6 years AFTER your plea.
__________________
Jack



Do you want an AOW or C&R SBS/SBR in CA?

FrontSight Training Course certificates available $25, PM for details on them and other options.
No posts of mine are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 09-12-2011, 6:05 PM
deprived of 2A deprived of 2A is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 73
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

well when the death penalty was reinstated they did'nt go back before then and pull every criminal back in and put them on death row! why would it be any different for this? I would really think this is a no brainer.
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 09-12-2011, 6:22 PM
deprived of 2A deprived of 2A is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 73
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

IF they felt I was so violent you woud think they would have kept it a felony? I find this to be crazy. I could see if it was an active law back then and I agreed to it. I would have to grin and bear it. This issue has never even surfaced until now, trying to buy youth rifles for my boys so they could hunt and target shoot with there grandfather. I'm not sure if i can even spectate a shooting event now without being in violation of a law?
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 09-12-2011, 6:27 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,171
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deprived of 2A View Post
IF they felt I was so violent you woud think they would have kept it a felony? I find this to be crazy. I could see if it was an active law back then and I agreed to it. I would have to grin and bear it. This issue has never even surfaced until now, trying to buy youth rifles for my boys so they could hunt and target shoot with there grandfather. I'm not sure if i can even spectate a shooting event now without being in violation of a law?
You are not alone. This law has deprived many of their rights.
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 09-22-2011, 7:22 PM
dad's Avatar
dad dad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 870
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This ATF link has been up dated! The answer to question one, has been expanded!
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/misd...ml#description
__________________
A nation of sheep, breeds a government of wolves!
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 09-22-2011, 7:37 PM
deprived of 2A deprived of 2A is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 73
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

so now they will except expungments? is this what you are referring too?
Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 09-23-2011, 12:27 PM
Grayblue Grayblue is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 314
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Life time ban of gun right for domestic violence misdemeanor is just plain wrong.

Anyone who knows what kind of bull**** can get you a DV charge can attest to that.

Some feminist activist, the ignorant kind, makes the society to view all domestic violence case as some evil brute guy beating up an innocent weak woman in a relationship. ABSOLUTE MAJORITY of DV cases are anything but that. I've seen it with my own eyes. In majority of cases it's two people going stupid at each other. Both are agressors and victims, and it's not a "battered wife syndrom" cases. So, if the system responds to those according to those ignorant activist's view point, it will be an overreaction, and punishment will not fit the crime.

Last edited by Grayblue; 09-23-2011 at 12:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 09-23-2011, 12:34 PM
Burbur Burbur is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 1,033
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ke6guj View Post
that is because the law that implemented that lifetime ban wasn't passed until ~6 years AFTER your plea.
They did the same thing for DUIs a few years ago too. You used to carry it 7 years, then it became 10, post facto.

No one really cares about law breakers. Go ahead, violate them any way you want. (/sarcasm, if you couldn't tell)
Reply With Quote
  #331  
Old 09-23-2011, 5:13 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
Nice. I brought that up in another thread. I even quoted what they said.

For those of you that don't know what we are talking about. The 7th said that misd DV is not a lifetime prohibition due to avenues for relief. They used California expungement as an example. The Feds are saying California expungement doesn't count because it's not complete expungement.

I have wanted someone to use that since I read those words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyca View Post
Exactly.

The ATF says, because the conviction can still be used as a prior offense for sentencing if one is arrested and convicted again.

Expungement was recognized in California for a while. There is even a memo from the California attorney general stating the change and it's implication on LEOs and others.
I copied this from the 273.5 PC! I believe it's only 7 years, that a prior conviction for 273.5 can be used against a person.

(g) If probation is granted, or the execution or imposition of a
sentence is suspended, for any defendant convicted under subdivision
(a) who has been convicted of any prior offense specified in
subdivision (e), the court shall impose one of the following
conditions of probation:
(1) If the defendant has suffered one prior conviction within the
previous seven years for a violation of any offense specified in
subdivision (e), it shall be a condition thereof, in addition to the
provisions contained in Section 1203.097, that he or she be
imprisoned in a county jail for not less than 15 days.
(2) If the defendant has suffered two or more prior convictions
within the previous seven years for a violation of any offense
specified in subdivision (e), it shall be a condition of probation,
in addition to the provisions contained in Section 1203.097, that he
or she be imprisoned in a county jail for not less than 60 days.
(3) The court, upon a showing of good cause, may find that the
mandatory imprisonment required by this subdivision shall not be
imposed and shall state on the record its reasons for finding good
cause.
__________________
A nation of sheep, breeds a government of wolves!
Reply With Quote
  #332  
Old 09-27-2011, 6:39 AM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,171
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dad View Post
I copied this from the 273.5 PC! I believe it's only 7 years, that a prior conviction for 273.5 can be used against a person.

(g) If probation is granted, or the execution or imposition of a
sentence is suspended, for any defendant convicted under subdivision
(a) who has been convicted of any prior offense specified in
subdivision (e), the court shall impose one of the following
conditions of probation:
(1) If the defendant has suffered one prior conviction within the
previous seven years for a violation of any offense specified in
subdivision (e), it shall be a condition thereof, in addition to the
provisions contained in Section 1203.097, that he or she be
imprisoned in a county jail for not less than 15 days.
(2) If the defendant has suffered two or more prior convictions
within the previous seven years for a violation of any offense
specified in subdivision (e), it shall be a condition of probation,
in addition to the provisions contained in Section 1203.097, that he
or she be imprisoned in a county jail for not less than 60 days.
(3) The court, upon a showing of good cause, may find that the
mandatory imprisonment required by this subdivision shall not be
imposed and shall state on the record its reasons for finding good
cause.
I believe the PC is referring to mandatory sentencing.
Reply With Quote
  #333  
Old 09-27-2011, 6:45 AM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,171
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M107A1 View Post
Feds are now asking for an extension to file reply to SAC until 09/26/11.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...911/215824/29/
Can someone please post an update?
Reply With Quote
  #334  
Old 09-27-2011, 5:00 PM
M107A1 M107A1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyca View Post
Can someone please post an update?
The Feds were granted an extension to file response to SAC. The new deadline is 10/03/11.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...911/215824/31/
Reply With Quote
  #335  
Old 09-27-2011, 5:02 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,171
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M107A1 View Post
The Feds were granted an extension to file response to SAC. The new deadline is 10/03/11.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...911/215824/31/
This takes too long.

Last edited by anthonyca; 09-27-2011 at 5:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #336  
Old 09-27-2011, 5:35 PM
M107A1 M107A1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyca View Post
This takes too long.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully the delay is because they are sinking fast. I read in another thread, that upon a favorable outcome in this case, that it would only affect people within the Eastern District Federal Court. I was under the impression that because this a federal matter, it affects the entire United States of America. Is anyone able to clarify the validity of this?
Reply With Quote
  #337  
Old 09-27-2011, 5:42 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,691
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Federal Court rulings are only binding in their own jurisdiction. A ruling in the eastern District of CA is binding in that District. A ruling in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals covers the 9th Circuit.
Only the US Supreme Court issues rulings that directly impact the entire United States.
Reply With Quote
  #338  
Old 09-27-2011, 7:09 PM
deprived of 2A deprived of 2A is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 73
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

according to Mr.Kilmer's wife it will apply to all!
Reply With Quote
  #339  
Old 09-27-2011, 9:39 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
Federal Court rulings are only binding in their own jurisdiction. A ruling in the eastern District of CA is binding in that District. A ruling in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals covers the 9th Circuit.
Only the US Supreme Court issues rulings that directly impact the entire United States.
A Federal District in California decision is binding on all of California but not on e.g. Arizona. A 9th Circuit court of appeals decision is binding on all of the states in the 9th Circuit.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #340  
Old 09-28-2011, 9:19 AM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,691
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Thanks, Gene. I didn't think I'd gone totally whacko!
Reply With Quote
  #341  
Old 09-28-2011, 10:09 AM
M107A1 M107A1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
A Federal District in California decision is binding on all of California but not on e.g. Arizona. A 9th Circuit court of appeals decision is binding on all of the states in the 9th Circuit.

-Gene
Thanks for the clarification.
Reply With Quote
  #342  
Old 09-28-2011, 4:41 PM
dad's Avatar
dad dad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 870
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There should be a law, that the court has to tell you about Lautenburg, before you are sentenced! No one in the judicial system told me any thing about a "life time ban"! Probation and the court, both said 10 years!
No one said any thing about life time!
__________________
A nation of sheep, breeds a government of wolves!
Reply With Quote
  #343  
Old 09-28-2011, 4:49 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,171
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dad View Post
There should be a law, that the court has to tell you about Lautenburg, before you are sentenced! No one in the judicial system told me any thing about a "life time ban"! Probation and the court, both said 10 years!
No one said any thing about life time!
I know someone who was in the Army reserve at the time. He was 19 and has signed original letters from his attorney stating that he could have his record expunged and that would allow him to have gun rights so he could carry a gun in the Army. We know that was false but he and his GF at the time based his decision to plead guilty and not spend the rest of his pittance of a life savings on court costs and a lawyer.

He was the soldier of the year for his battalion and had never even had a speeding ticket or any contact with the police. He has never had any negative police contact in the 14 years since.
Reply With Quote
  #344  
Old 10-03-2011, 1:52 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,171
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M107A1 View Post
The Feds were granted an extension to file response to SAC. The new deadline is 10/03/11.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...911/215824/31/
Has the case been updated today?
Reply With Quote
  #345  
Old 10-03-2011, 8:45 PM
dad's Avatar
dad dad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 870
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

10-3-2011
Attached Files
File Type: pdf gov.uscourts.caed.215824.32.1.pdf (205.1 KB, 139 views)
Reply With Quote
  #346  
Old 10-03-2011, 9:38 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,171
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dad View Post
10-3-2011
Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #347  
Old 10-03-2011, 10:03 PM
deprived of 2A deprived of 2A is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 73
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The feds keep claiming a person can get relief from the lifetime ban! where? how? can someone explain this process? please! I would really like to try this process out.
Reply With Quote
  #348  
Old 10-03-2011, 10:08 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 deprived of 2A View Post
The feds keep claiming a person can get relief from the lifetime ban! where? how? can someone explain this process? please! I would really like to try this process out.
You have 20 yrs., since your dv, correct?
Reply With Quote
  #349  
Old 10-03-2011, 10:09 PM
deprived of 2A deprived of 2A is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 73
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

it sounds like the feds link all d.v. cases together regardless of the situations! I truly feel for anyone who is dooped into taking a plea deal due to lack of finances for a lawyer, or who have bogus charges thrown on them! cause knowing first hand one and only one time will ruin you for "LIFE"
Reply With Quote
  #350  
Old 10-03-2011, 10:10 PM
deprived of 2A deprived of 2A is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 73
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

20 years is correct!
Reply With Quote
  #351  
Old 10-03-2011, 10:11 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 deprived of 2A View Post
20 years is correct!
Have you not received an E-mail and a pm from me?
Reply With Quote
  #352  
Old 10-03-2011, 10:26 PM
deprived of 2A deprived of 2A is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 73
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dad View Post
Have you not received an E-mail and a pm from me?
yes sir found it.
Reply With Quote
  #353  
Old 10-03-2011, 10:57 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,171
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deprived of 2A View Post
The feds keep claiming a person can get relief from the lifetime ban! where? how? can someone explain this process? please! I would really like to try this process out.
I would like to see someone try this misterious and elusive restoration process the Feds say exists. They should at least have to give us proof of anyone using this process.
Reply With Quote
  #354  
Old 10-04-2011, 2:04 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 34,250
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

That was an interesting brief - thanks.

It seems part of the argument turns, in the minds of the US team, on loss of rightS vs loss of (one) right.

Apparently, if one did not also lose the right to vote, serve on juries, and hold public office at the same time as losing the right to own and possess firearms, then it was not your rightS that were restored by any California mechanism.

And therefore, one remains Federally disabled.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #355  
Old 10-04-2011, 6:23 AM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,171
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
That was an interesting brief - thanks.

It seems part of the argument turns, in the minds of the US team, on loss of rightS vs loss of (one) right.

Apparently, if one did not also lose the right to vote, serve on juries, and hold public office at the same time as losing the right to own and possess firearms, then it was not your rightS that were restored by any California mechanism.

And therefore, one remains Federally disabled.
James Madison: Creeping Incrementalism
"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -- James Madison, speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788

Our government went from saying that the second amendment was not a right, to saying that as long as they take one right at a time nothing is wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #356  
Old 10-04-2011, 9:00 AM
7x57's Avatar
7x57 7x57 is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 5,161
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyca View Post
Our government went from saying that the second amendment was not a right, to saying that as long as they take one right at a time nothing is wrong.
And yet, in the grand scheme of things, making them use the "r-word" is a win.

7x57
__________________


What do you need guns for if you are going to send your children, seven hours a day, 180 days a year to government schools? What do you need the guns for at that point?-- R. C. Sproul, Jr. (unconfirmed)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
I know every chance I get I'm going to accuse 7x57 of being a shill for LCAV. Because I can.
Reply With Quote
  #357  
Old 10-04-2011, 12:57 PM
Westerner Westerner is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 92
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Is the presiding judge in this case more Liberal or Conservative?
Reply With Quote
  #358  
Old 10-04-2011, 3:05 PM
dad's Avatar
dad dad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 870
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

They should have answered "no", to question 11i, on the ATF Form 4473! Then they would know, who was approved or denied, and take that to court!
Reply With Quote
  #359  
Old 10-04-2011, 10:38 PM
dad's Avatar
dad dad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 870
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What is Kilmer's next move?
Reply With Quote
  #360  
Old 10-06-2011, 11:59 AM
banned4life banned4life is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default IS there a procedure to take this to court

Quote:
Originally Posted by dad View Post
They should have answered "no", to question 11i, on the ATF Form 4473! Then they would know, who was approved or denied, and take that to court!
Dad
Is there some way to take this to court to get your 'gun rights' restored?
Is the procedure done in a Federal or California court as the feds seem to say "California can't restore what they didn't take away"
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 12:44 PM.




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.