Gun Ownership with Prison Record

[Sizzlechest]

A Good friend of mine Spend a few years in Prison over 15 years ago. As young 20 year old guy he was involved in a car accident where a person was killed. This was not a DUI but he was driving fast and reckless. He got some sort of manslaughter and served 3 years. Since then he has finished college married and has a job etc.. Can he own guns in CA, can he even join me at the range?
He is in Socal maybe an attorney to run this by? Thanks.

[SkyHawk]

He cannot join you at the range, he cannot touch a gun.

He can contact Jason Davis to see if his crime could be reduced to a misdemeanor. But if he served prison time, that is very unlikely. His only chance then would be a pardon from the governor.

http://www.calgunlawyers.com/

[IVC]

It's almost certainly a felony and as such carries firearm prohibition. (Misdemeanor is maximum of one year in jail.) You can get in trouble yourself if you knowingly lend him a firearm.

Best to talk to an attorney to make sure you have all the correct details and to get a valid legal advice. Internet won't cut it...

[Hairball]

In his case, no he can not legally purchase/ own a firearm. While there are challenges to this process in various courts across the country (giving convicted felons the right of personal protection in their own home) nothing has been passed that I am aware of at this point that would allow these individuals to maintain a firearm. As far as a felon shooting at the gun range, I have never seen anyone wearing a CDC orange shirt at the range or anything with "felon" printed on it so I can't answer the other part of the question.

[HardwoodRods]

Currently, no a felon is a felon, forever and ever, however the left is trying really hard to change it. Is he black by chance? Obama seems to have a penchant for granting clemency currently..........

[Br'r Wolf]

he killed someone while driving recklessly so there's that. he deserves no clemency.

[Win231]

he can get into airgun shooting

LOL!

The excitement of hearing that fart-like pop!

The power!

The recoil!

The challenge!

[fiddletown]

....Can he own guns in CA, can he even join me at the range?....

Even without consideration of California law, under federal law he can't have a gun or ammunition in his hands. And anyone who might loan him or let him handle a gun would also violate federal law by aiding and abetting a prohibited person unlawfully possess (have physical possession of) a gun.

Federal law:

1. The statute, 18 USC 922(g):

   (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
   
   (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

   (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
   
   (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
   
   (C)
   

   (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
   
   (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
   

   (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,
   

   to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

   
   
2. What some courts have said:
   
   
   1. In U.S. v. Chesney, 86 F.3d 564 (C.A.6 (Tenn.), 1996), the Sixth Circuit affirmed, against a Commerce Clause challenge Chesney's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
      
      In rejecting Chesney's assertion that the 18 USC 922(g) is unconstitutional, the court of appeal noted, at 568 -- 569:

      United States v. TurnerTurner

      
      In rejecting Chesney's assertion that the statute can not be applied in his case, the court of appeal noted, at 570 -- 571:

      United States v. LeeScarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 566-67, 97 S.Ct. 1963, 1964-65, 52 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977). Although ScarboroughLopezScarborough, is constitutional. See, e.g., McAllister, 77 F.3d at 390; Sorrentino, 72 F.3d at 296; Shelton, 66 F.3d at 992; Hanna, 55 F.3d at 1462 n. 2.,...

      
      
   2. In U.S. v. Singletary, 268 F.3d 196 (3rd Cir., 2001), the Third Circuit affirmed a conviction for being a felon in possession against an attack on the constitutionality of 922(g), at 197:

      ...Singletary contends that the felon-in-possession statute is unconstitutional because the conduct it proscribes -- the intrastate possession of a firearm -- does not have a substantial effect upon interstate commerce, and thus does not constitute a valid exercise of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause. Specifically,...

      
      In rejected Singletary's assertion, the court of appeal noted, at 200:

      ...the Court in Scarborough v. United States had the opportunity to address squarely "whether proof that the possessed firearm previously traveled in interstate commerce is sufficient to satisfy the statutorily required nexus between the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and commerce." 431 U.S. 563, 564 (1977). The Court accepted the Government's contention that it only need prove that "the firearm possessed by the convicted felon traveled at some time in interstate commerce." Id. at 568. Thus, the Scarborough Court established the proposition that the transport of a weapon in interstate commerce, however remote in the distant past, gives its present intrastate possession a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce to fall within the ambit of the statute. Because S 1202(a) is the predecessor to the current felon-in-possession statute, this statutory construction applies equally to S 922(g)(1)....

      
      
   3. In United States v. Hoyle, 697 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir., 2012), the Tenth Circuit affirmed Hoyle's conviction for being a felon in possession. In doing so the court of appeal noted, at 1165:

      United States v. WilliamsScarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 566, 97 S.Ct. 1963, 52 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977)...

   
   
   
3. And about possession:
   
   
   1. U.S. v. Barron-Rivera, 922 F.2d 549 (C.A.9 (Wash.), 1991) in which Barron-Rivera's conviction for being an alien in possession of a firearm was affirmed without him even having had to touch a gun. Barron-Rivera's claimed reversible error in that the government failed to prove the necessary intent.
      
      The court of appeal noted, at 551:

      ...Barron-Rivera argued that the gun was in his wife's residence at the time he re-entered the United States and moved back into that residence. Accepting that contention, the district court, nonetheless, found that Barron-Rivera's possession of the firearm was voluntary because he permitted the firearm to remain in the house after he acquired knowledge of its presence....

      
      In affirming the conviction, the court of appeal found, at 551 -- 552:

      ...In other words, by continuing to reside in the apartment in which the gun was located, he voluntarily and knowingly possessed the gun...

      
      
   2. United States v. Huet, 665 F.3d 588 (3rd Cir., 2012), in which the gun a prohibited person was charged with illegally possessing was not secured against the prohibited person's access, supporting both the prohibited person's conviction for unlawful possession of a gun and the indictment of his cohabitant. From the opinion (at pg. 593, emphasis added):

      from an upstairs bedroom

      So the gun Hall, a convicted felon, was indicted for unlawfully possessing, belonged to his cohabitant, Huet. It appears to have been undisputed that Huet could lawfully possess firearms. Nonetheless, she was indicted for aiding and abetting Hall's unlawful possession of gun because Huet's gun wasn't secured against access by Hall.
      
      
   3. So in "prohibited person in possession" cases the prohibited person doesn't even need to have actual, physical possession of the gun in order to be guilty of illegal possession. He need only have easy access to the gun, even if he doesn't touch it.
   
   
   
4. As to "aiding and abetting", see 18 USC 2:

   (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
   (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

[dekul34]

In some states, there are paths for legal restoration of civil rights (by modifying the past conviction to misdemeanor after the sentence is served) which you have to apply for and convince a judge you are rehabilitated.

Not sure if this applies in California or not...

[SVT-40]

Nothing to add... Other that the rifles in the OP's avatar are mine!!!!

LOL....

Better pic's!!!

[Divernhunter]

So the OP is a bit on the shady side also.

[bsg]

incredible.

[alpha_romeo_XV]

Nothing to add... Other that the rifles in the OP's avatar are mine!!!!

[Firearms1979]

Usually when a person starts a story of by saying, "A good friend of mine". It means they're talking about themselves

[norcal77]

Nope, never, not even if he expunged