Linton v Becerra (US Dist Ct Nor Cal, 3/5/2021: Stayed Pending Duncan v Becerra

[darkwater34]

Still waiting for Saint Benitez to rule if it matters after Bruen.

[Bhobbs]

What do magazines have to do with people getting their rights back?

[darkwater34]

Don't know but the judge stayed the case for Duncan v Bonta
:
Also didn't Congress pass a law exempting person's that had convictions set aside, vacated,expunged or had been granted a pardon from being prohibited from possession and purchasing firearms. :euro

Read somewhere in reading Range v U.S. Attorney General if memory serves me right last five or six pages.

[darkwater34]

I don't think that Range v U.S. Attorney General has in bearing on this case as Range did not have his case set aside.

[darkwater34]

I believe the law that was passed by Congress mentioned in Range v United States Attorney General referring to is:
Caron v United States, 524 U.S. 308 1998

Also don't see how defendants can ignore plaintiffs rights to firearm possession and purchasing there of since plaintiffs have had their convictions set aside, vacated, or expunged.

[darkwater34]

Also looking at Plaintiff Stewart's conviction he was originally charged with 1st degree burglary but was convicted of 3rd degree burglary. You have to look at the conviction not the charge. But he is no longer a felon because of the set aside and restoration of his civil rights.

[darkwater34]

Also since Buren they have to provide historical evidence that people with expunged, set aside, vacated or pardoned convictions are or have been prohibited for possession and purchasing firearms. Don't see them being able to do this. Remember it is up to the government to prove not the Plaintiffs. They cannot go past the year 1998.

[darkwater34]

From the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ARCHIVES interesting read 1435 Post-Conviction Restoration of Civil Rights . Basically states that a person who has been convicted of a crime that would cause the person to receive a sentence of a year or more in jail or prison may not own firearms unless that person has hade the conviction set aside, vacated, expunged or pardoned can possess, purchase firearms unless the state where set aside, expunged or pardoned specifically states such ownership is prohibited. Since all plaintiffs in this case have had there Rights restored including the right to possess firearms without any state prohibitions. Then as federal law dictates the state must comply as federal unless clause applies.

[ajb78]

Originally Posted by darkwater34

From the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ARCHIVES interesting read 1435 Post-Conviction Restoration of Civil Rights . Basically states that a person who has been convicted of a crime that would cause the person to receive a sentence of a year or more in jail or prison may not own firearms unless that person has hade the conviction set aside, vacated, expunged or pardoned can possess, purchase firearms unless the state where set aside, expunged or pardoned specifically states such ownership is prohibited. Since all plaintiffs in this case have had there Rights restored including the right to possess firearms without any state prohibitions. Then as federal law dictates the state must comply as federal unless clause applies.

CA and the Fed .GOV don't care, their goal is to make everyone a prohibited person. CA "expungements" aren't worth the paper they're printed on, why would they honor it from another State . There is also supposed to be a mechanism to petition for rights restoration through BATFE, yet Congress prohibits the BATFE from funding the program for the past 30+ years.

Originally Posted by 18 U.S. Code ? 925 - Exceptions: Relief from disabilities

(c)A person who is prohibited from possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms or ammunition may make application to the Attorney General for relief from the disabilities imposed by Federal laws with respect to the acquisition, receipt, transfer, shipment, transportation, or possession of firearms, and the Attorney General may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant?s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. Any person whose application for relief from disabilities is denied by the Attorney General may file a petition with the United States district court for the district in which he resides for a judicial review of such denial. The court may in its discretion admit additional evidence where failure to do so would result in a miscarriage of justice. A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector conducting operations under this chapter, who makes application for relief from the disabilities incurred under this chapter, shall not be barred by such disability from further operations under his license pending final action on an application for relief filed pursuant to this section. Whenever the Attorney General grants relief to any person pursuant to this section he shall promptly publish in the Federal Register notice of such action, together with the reasons therefor.

[darkwater34]

Does seem that the only way to get one's rights is to litigate the matter in court. If plaintiffs win this case it is only going to be a win for plaintiffs pretty sad. Because there are more of us in the same boat. I don't know how a person who lives in the same state of conviction had her rights restored and was issued a CCW With laws written as they are.

[SpudmanWP]

PIs tend to sometimes be for the "plaintiff only", but final orders cover everyone under the court's jurisdiction. Sometimes Judges will issue a "Permanent Injunction" nationwide of the defendant is the Federal Gov.

[darkwater34]

Then this could be good. One thing I have learned from all of this reading is one thing and that is if you ever have your felony conviction set aside, vacated, expunged, or pardoned for such, you better towe the line, because the government will go to great lengths to get the maximum sentence even if they have to get HOMELAND SECURITY involved according to the directions outlined for prosecutors in the legal hand book. Because Congress has installed the unless clause within D.O.J.'s rule if one was ever convicted of a crime that the person could have been imprisoned for a year or more. They have (D.O.J) found away to circumvent the person of a special classification, such one that has Post-Conviction Restored. I have for the past 43+ years have done everything to make sure that I do not have to spend anytime inside looking out. I cherish my freedom and my being able to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights that I will continue to stay free as it would literally kill me to be locked up.My freedom is priceless and I won't ever sell it out. I will never vote for a law that will infringe on our 2nd Amendment Rights. Trade my firearms for the legalization of any street drug or trade free phones, or free health care as the politicians like to attach such things to anti gun laws.

[darkwater34]

The unless clause states otherwise had the conviction vacated, set aside, expunged, or pardoned unless the Post-Conviction Restoration states cannot own certain type of firearms or banned from possession in certain places, or the possession of firearms is denied entirely.

[darkwater34]

I don't have a link but Mark Smith and the Armed Scholar has posted youtube videos

[ajb78]

Originally Posted by darkwater34

I don't have a link but Mark Smith and the Armed Scholar has posted youtube videos

Thread in National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1863992

PDF:
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1686067448

[darkwater34]

Suprise to see and hear that Democrat appointed judges are not biased in their decision making. After seeing a lot of decisions comming out of the 9th Circuit Court maybe the tides have turned. Any ruling that don't give plaintiffs in the linton v bonta case would most definitely be granted on appeal there should be no reason not be given P.I Relief to give plaintiffs. Also shows that plaintiffs would win in a trial court based on the merits. I am still wondering if the Honerable James Donato has admonished the defendants for attempting to confuse the court by painting plaintiffs as violent felons.

[darkwater34]

The recent Statement is overruled by the recent decision of RANGE V GARLAND.

[darkwater34]

Also unconstitutional as for the 2A as written defends everything that the proposed 28th Amendment implies. Grease head Newsum is an idiot.

[darkwater34]

United States v Jackson

Points of merit:

1. Range v Garland supercedes U.S. v Jackson by dates of ruling also Range had his
previous conviction expunged, vacated or set aside
2. Also Jackson never had his previous conviction expunged, vacated, or set aside.
3. Plaintiffs never were convicted of a violent crime
4.Plaintiffs never convicted of felony drug charges.

Anyone can read the first couple of lines of the Complaint U.S. V JACKSON and can see that this ruling in the U.S. JACKSON appeals Complaint is IMATERIAL, MISLEADING AND IRRELEVANT and as no bearing on this case and should be struck down and removed from the record.

Further more I do hope that the Attorneys for the plaintiffs see this and object to this so called evidence being presented to the court by the defendants as this is just the defendants grasping at straws. To avoid drowning in the whirlpool of justice that Range v Garland has created.

[darkwater34]

Federal
Restoration of Rights & Record
D. Firearms

People with convictions in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, whether the conviction is under state or federal law, are subject to the prohibition on possession of firearms under federal law, 18 U.S.C. ? 922(g)(1). They may also be subject to additional prohibitions under the laws of the several states (see profiles of other states). Persons convicted of domestic violence offenses also lose firearms rights under federal law ? 922(g)(9). The statutory mechanism for relief from federal firearms dispossession, ? 925(c), has not been funded since 1993. See United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71, 75 (2002).

People with state convictions may avoid the federal bars in ?? 922(g)(1) and (g)(9) if their convictions have been pardoned, set-aside, or expunged, or if their civil rights have been restored, unless the relief they obtained ?expressly provides? that they ?may not? possess firearms. See 18 U.S.C. ?? 921(a)(20), (a)(33)(ii). Automatic restoration of civil rights is effective to remove federal gun dispossession, see Caron v. United States, 524 U.S. 308 (1998), but many other questions about the effect given the state relief mechanisms specified in ?? 921(a)(20) and (a)(33)(ii) remain unresolved.

The unsettled state of the law after more than 40 years of litigation in the lower federal courts is revealed in the ?Notes of Decisions? following these sections in the U.S. Code. For example, the circuits remain split on how to interpret the ambiguous language of ? 921(a)(20) on the question whether a person must be free of state firearms disabilities in order to take advantage of the relief offered by ?? 921(a)(20) and (a)(33). As another example, there is some question about how to interpret the term ?expungement? in these federal laws, and whether it applies of only if a record has been sealed but not completely destroyed.

For people with federal convictions, the only form of relief that will be sufficient under ?? 921(a)(20) and (a)(33) is a presidential pardon. See Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368 (1994).

For an overview of the relationship between state and federal firearms dispossession laws, see the 50-state comparison chart on Loss & Restoration of Civil/Firearms Rights, https://ccresourcecenter.org/state-r...ms-privileges/. See also Love, Roberts & Logan, Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction: Law, Policy & Practice ? 2:35 (?Restoration of firearms privileges: relationship between state and federal dispossession laws?)(West/NACDL, 4th ed. 2021-22).

See also the further discussion of the effect of state relief mechanisms under federal law in Part IIE.

[darkwater34]

Yes I forgot that California ignores Federal law unless it the law benefits California.

[darkwater34]

Could this be the same Paul Stewart that was the explosive expert on the Twilight Zone movies set,? Most people know that Vic Morrow and two children lost their lives during the filming of the movie.

[darkwater34]

Paul Stewart born October 23, 1963 not the same Paul Stewart according to court records filed in this case Paul Stewart was born November 18,1957.

[darkwater34]

Well looks as if The Honorable Saint Benitez has given the same opportunity to the defendants in RHODE v BONTA as he offered to the defendants in DUNCAN V BONTA. I wonder if he is going to rule on both cases simultaneously looks like 45+ days unless I read it wrong 30 days for defendants to make their case with historical laws and experts and 15 days for plaintiffs to depose their experts.

[Chewy65]

Originally Posted by darkwater34

Could this be the same Paul Stewart that was the explosive expert on the Twilight Zone movies set,? Most people know that Vic Morrow and two children lost their lives during the filming of the movie.

Was that the one with a helicoper crash?

[Chewy65]

Originally Posted by darkwater34

Well looks as if The Honorable Saint Benitez has given the same opportunity to the defendants in RHODE v BONTA as he offered to the defendants in DUNCAN V BONTA. I wonder if he is going to rule on both cases simultaneously looks like 45+ days unless I read it wrong 30 days for defendants to make their case with historical laws and experts and 15 days for plaintiffs to depose their experts.

You mean this which comes from the docket page at Court Listener?

Within 30 days of today, Defendant shall name and file an expert report(s) or declaration(s) regarding the American history and tradition of background checks. Within 15 days thereafter, Plaintiffs shall decide whether to depose said expert(s), and within 30 days after deciding, Plaintiffs shall file a brief or expert declaration(s) in response. Additionally, within 30 days of today, Defendant shall file an updated declaration regarding ammunition purchaser background check acceptance/rejection rates and processing times, as performed previously. Additionally, within 30 days of today, Defendant shall report to the extent ascertainable, on persons described in previous declarations as persons who underwent background checks and were identified as prohibited persons and indicate whether such persons were prosecuted and whether firearms were located and seized from such persons.

It's 27 days to popcorn time!

[WithinReason]

I should buy stock in a popcorn company...

[darkwater34]

I wonder what expert or experts they may find to clarify that background checks were the law of the land back when the founders were writing the Constitution of the United States of America and the BILL of RIGHTS. Probably pull some Facebook Fact Checkers out of their butt holes.

[darkwater34]

I don't see a ruling on this until RANGE v GARLAND goes through complete appeals process. 5-10 more years of litigation. Plaintiffs will have attended their own funerals by then from the looks of it all three of the plaintiffs are now eligible for social security retirement at the time of this post.

[darkwater34]

Breaking case concerning carrying firearms across state lines. C
OMMONWEALTH v DONNELL
Pretty much sums it up for this case if plaintiffs would be able to legally purchase and possess firearms in the states where their rights were restored then they should be able to possess and purchase firearms in any state of the union, regardless of laws or policies that would otherwise prevent them from doing so.

[darkwater34]

Also Linton and Stewart reside in states that do honor people with previous felony convictions that have had their rights restored to possess and to purchase forearms.
I believe Linton lives in Nevada and owns property in California, and Stewart lives in Arizona and also owns property in California. Both visit their propertieand may stay at those properties for an unknown period of time throughout the year. As the court filings show Stewart resides in the perspective state where his rights were restored. It is unknown if Linton or Stewart has chosen to possess or purchase firearms in the states they now reside in. But I am pretty sure that if they could pass the background check in those states.That they would exercise the right to do so.

[gunuser17]

Donnell Opinion

https://www.docdroid.net/524o4XV/opi...ell-pdf#page=7

Its a start but the question is will it stand up on appeal in Massachusetts - not the most conservative of states.

[darkwater34]

This case was decided on by a lower court Judge, which is amazing in itself.

[command_liner]

This appears to open a whole can of worms for Massachusettes, a state where I lived for a long time. Now I am an Oregon resident, and I would like to carry in NH, but my property in NH does not have a structure on it, so I cannot store a firearm there.

Open carry is unlicensed in OR and NH. The logic of this ruling means that after I get my firearm at the baggage claim, I need to put it in a holster on the outside of my clothing, so as to not violate the NH rule of "one inch exposed". Unlicensed open carry through Logan airport might be very interesting. I can just imagine talking to the Mass. State Police Troop F that patrols the taxi and automotive pick-up zones...

Carry a non-serialized handgun for maximum effect!

[darkwater34]

Get an R.V.

[Chewy65]

Originally Posted by command_liner

This appears to open a whole can of worms for Massachusettes, a state where I lived for a long time. Now I am an Oregon resident, and I would like to carry in NH, but my property in NH does not have a structure on it, so I cannot store a firearm there.

Open carry is unlicensed in OR and NH. The logic of this ruling means that after I get my firearm at the baggage claim, I need to put it in a holster on the outside of my clothing, so as to not violate the NH rule of "one inch exposed". Unlicensed open carry through Logan airport might be very interesting. I can just imagine talking to the Mass. State Police Troop F that patrols the taxi and automotive pick-up zones...

Carry a non-serialized handgun for maximum effect!

Be careful carrying in an airport. States may have special laws fopr them

[darkwater34]

I don't know how anyone could get by TSA with a Firearm even federal Air Marshall's have issues. .

[command_liner]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

Be careful carrying in an airport. States may have special laws fopr them

Just use the normal process when flying: declare and check the handgun. The tricky part comes when arriving in MA. With no license in MA, what happens with the gun then? If MA is forced to honor home-state carry rules, then the only way to leave Logan airport is with open carry. Anything else is concealed. It would be particularly interesting to take the shortest, most direct route *by bicycle* to NH.

A non-serialized pistol (early Walther PP) would be an interesting thing to carry, but so would a 10-shot revolver of the type at the center of Heller. Was there ever an AR-type pistol sold new with the SureFire 100 round magazine? That would be an awesome choice. For maximum hilarity, invite Ms. Caetano along for the ride.

I know a Federal judge in the 9th circuit, but I doubt I can get her to come along on such a ride.

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by command_liner

This appears to open a whole can of worms for Massachusettes, a state where I lived for a long time. Now I am an Oregon resident, and I would like to carry in NH, but my property in NH does not have a structure on it, so I cannot store a firearm there.

Open carry is unlicensed in OR and NH. The logic of this ruling means that after I get my firearm at the baggage claim, I need to put it in a holster on the outside of my clothing, so as to not violate the NH rule of "one inch exposed". Unlicensed open carry through Logan airport might be very interesting. I can just imagine talking to the Mass. State Police Troop F that patrols the taxi and automotive pick-up zones...

I know this post may have been joking, but unless and until Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell issues guidance affirming some aspect of this ruling, I would insist that nobody should attempt anything along these lines. The anti-gun states in the northeast, such as New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, zealously enforce their onerous gun laws to a degree that makes California look libertarian.

[darkwater34]

I already see this being appealed all the way to the SCOTUS. Because there are a lot of people that are probably going to have their convictions over turned if they don't keep this law enforceable.