Ammo possession illegal for misdemeanor DV convicts?

[SteveH]

If someone has multiple prior convictions for misdemeanor domestic violence, and is currently in possession of meth and ammo for a rifle and handgun both, is the ammo possession illegal?

If your answer is yes, which california penal code section is he in violation of?

He's not a convicted felon.
He's not a narcotics addict.
He's not a documented gang member.
He is not under a current restraining order.

What says the experts?

[hawk1]

18 usc 922(g),(8),(9)

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

Edit: Found this link from CD Michel on Gun Possession and Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence Convictions in California
Might find something you need in there.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Gun-Possession-and-MCDV-Convictions-in-California-2.pdf

[Cuahitl]

Yes PC12316(B)(1)

[Glock22Fan]

Yes PC12316(B)(1)

here

(b) (1) No person prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm
under Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103
of the Welfare and Institutions Code shall own, possess, or have
under his or her custody or control, any ammunition or reloaded
ammunition.

[stix213]

If someone has multiple prior convictions for misdemeanor domestic violence, and is currently in possession of meth and ammo for a rifle and handgun both, is the ammo possession illegal?

If your answer is yes, which california penal code section is he in violation of?

He's not a convicted felon.
He's not a narcotics addict.
He's not a documented gang member.
He is not under a current restraining order.

What says the experts?

How are both the bolded statements true?

[SteveH]

How are both the bolded statements true?

1. methamphetamine is a stimulant, not a narcotic.
2. simple possession does not establish addiction.

[Bigtime1]

1. methamphetamine is a stimulant, not a narcotic.
2. simple possession does not establish addiction.

What kind of behavior are you trying to justify?

[Quser.619]

yes possession of Meth is Federal law, combined w/ previous convictions of DV - thus possibly making him a prohibited person. Prohibited people cannot have ammo.

[SteveH]

What kind of behavior are you trying to justify?

Don't leap to conclusions. you are way out of your lane. I train police officers and this question is one that had many stumped recently. Calguns as a whole is very knowledgable about such things so I thought i would ask here. So that I might give correct guidance in the future.

Ironic that someone here would imply i am a wife beating tweeker with an ammo collection.

[scarville]

How are both the bolded statements true?

Methamphetamine is not a narcotic. It is, however, a Schedule II drug, meaning it has a high abuse risk, but also government approved medical uses.

Don't know if that make any difference.

Ironic that someone here would imply i am a wife beating tweeker with an ammo collection.

Welcome to Calguns ...

[SteveH]

I come here when i want expert advise on firearms related laws. I apreciate those who took the time to try to answer the question. Thanks.

[jwb28]

Yea, that jumping to conclusions thing is a *****. I usually don't post in other peoples tit for tat but. Speaking for myself I never thought you were a wife beating tweaker with some ammo. Your post sounded like you wanted to nail someone annon. or maybe trying to give said tweaker some advice.
I don't think anyone her accused you of anything Steve.

[hawk1]

How about getting back to what the OP asked for?...

[Glock22Fan]

How about getting back to what the OP asked for?...

What's wrong with the answers already given in the first few posts?

Frankly, if the hypotherical tweaker isn't banned, he darned well ought to be

However, if this is for the sake of educating cops on what might, or might not, stick, I would have thought that the legal opinion of the relevant D.A. in the cops' jurisdiction would carry a lot more weight than ours.

After all, there's no point in the cop arresting someone if the D.A. won't prosecute, and every point if they will.

[hawk1]

What's wrong with the answers already given in the first few posts?

Frankly, if the hypotherical tweaker isn't banned, he darned well ought to be

However, if this is for the sake of educating cops on what might, or might not, stick, I would have thought that the legal opinion of the relevant D.A. in the cops' jurisdiction would carry a lot more weight than ours.

After all, there's no point in the cop arresting someone if the D.A. won't prosecute, and every point if they will.

Nothing at all and wasn't pointed at you.
Posts 5 though 12 (not 11) that want to argue something else are not needed, but that's what happens when drugs are discussed.