Current cases in process for firearm rights restoring for Misdemeanor DV?

[wolfwood]

But it means that even if a challenge against Lautenberg is accepted and ruled favorably by SCOTUS, a separate challenge would be needed against California law, meaning it would need to go through the 9th.
California likely passed this in anticipation of a future favorable ruling from a SCOTUS comprised of 6 Bush/Trump appointments.

You could just challenge both in one case.

[ajb78]

Correct. The Ninth Circuit is open to a challenge to Lautenburg and CA state law because there is currently no way to get a conviction set aside or expunged

So, what would that need to look like, money-wise and plaintiff-wise?

[BryMan92]

Perhaps related:

https://reason.com/blog/2018/12/26/california-says-residents-with-vacated-o

[wolfwood]

So, what would that need to look like, money-wise and plaintiff-wise?

You'd want one or more people with a single county of misdemeanor DV. from years in the past and no convictions afterwards.

If you were paying a private lawyer to do it I'd suspect around 40-50k to take it all the way up to the Ninth Circuit.

You'd get your money back if you won.

[Cokebottle]

You'd want one or more people with a single county of misdemeanor DV. from years in the past and no convictions afterwards.

And preferably a conviction that stemmed from "BS" accusations from a now-ex-spouse that was plea bargained down to misdo on advice from counsel that it was not worth the cost and risk of taking before a jury, and would have no impact on future firearms ownership or state licensing status.

[anthonyca]

You'd want one or more people with a single county of misdemeanor DV. from years in the past and no convictions afterwards.

If you were paying a private lawyer to do it I'd suspect around 40-50k to take it all the way up to the Ninth Circuit.

You'd get your money back if you won.

And preferably a conviction that stemmed from "BS" accusations from a now-ex-spouse that was plea bargained down to misdo on advice from counsel that it was not worth the cost and risk of taking before a jury, and would have no impact on future firearms ownership or state licensing status.

I know of someone who plead to a misdemeanor battery when he was about 19. He was in the Army Reserve at the time. His lawyer did a horrible job and he didn't know about the Federal Lautenberg ban at the time and she never mentioned that. We were throwing people out of the reserves because of this law but he made it through his first 6 year enlistment with an honorable discharge and decorations.

His lawyer actually told him, in a letter dated after she entered his plea of no contest, that it "occurred to her" that he would be banned for 10 years under California law and he still has that letter.

He never went to court as the lawyer went for him. The TAHL form only lists a possibility of lost gun rights on one side and he just signed the back because he was a dumb kid who had never ben in trouble and he just spent his life savings on a lawyer he thought had his best interests in mind.

He is now a early 40 something successful manager of a large team at work and is thinking of challenging this. He has never had any kind of negative law enforcement contact before or after.

[walter181]

Interesting reading. Looking forward to seeing what develops, as I fit the bill, single M-DV from over a decade ago with no other run ins with the law of any kind, but don't have a spare 40-50k to drop on this. Also fit the description of what Cokebottle laid out.

[ajb78]

But it means that even if a challenge against Lautenberg is accepted and ruled favorably by SCOTUS, a separate challenge would be needed against California law, meaning it would need to go through the 9th.
California likely passed this in anticipation of a future favorable ruling from a SCOTUS comprised of 6 Bush/Trump appointments.

Wouldn't a challenge to CA law only be needed if the conviction was for PC 273.5, and the conviction occurred after January 1, 2019?

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=29805.

[snip]
(b) Any person who is convicted, on or after January 1, 2019, of a misdemeanor violation of Section 273.5, and who subsequently owns, purchases, receives, or has in possession or under custody or control, any firearm is guilty of a public offense, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.

[anthonyca]

Interesting reading. Looking forward to seeing what develops, as I fit the bill, single M-DV from over a decade ago with no other run ins with the law of any kind, but don't have a spare 40-50k to drop on this. Also fit the description of what Cokebottle laid out.

I know someone who has the money and is in this situation. Who should he contact?

[wolfwood]

http://www.sdslaw.us/contact

My business partner does all the client intake. He'd be happy to look at it.

[ajb78]

I was cleaning out my inbox and ran across a notification email for this thread, which appears to have gotten buried to page 3 now, how time flies.

Does the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision give any help to these types of cases? How about the spreadsheets created for the various cases that Benitez is currently hearing? I'm not seeing a whole lot of, if any, history to support such a law.

[Librarian]

I was cleaning out my inbox and ran across a notification email for this thread, which appears to have gotten buried to page 3 now, how time flies.

Does the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision give any help to these types of cases? How about the spreadsheets created for the various cases that Benitez is currently hearing? I'm not seeing a whole lot of, if any, history to support such a law.

Apparently Bruen does. See this thread about a 5th Circuit case - http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1843110

[ajb78]

Apparently Bruen does. See this thread about a 5th Circuit case - http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1843110

Thank you Librarian, I saw that elsewhere shortly after my post here. Interesting timing to say the least.