PROP 64 reducing felony to a misdemeanor

[Kellon]

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/prop64-Memo-20170522.pdf

See pages 38&43. This isn't a random persons interpretation of the law but actual Cal Justices writing for the state on how cases should be handled.

[The Papa]

So nothing is as it seems. I failed the DROS. I contacted senators office and they are working on it. I called the only number I have for a live person at the DOJ and refused to stop calling until I spoke to someone that could help. Finally after 17 calls they let me speak to a supervisor. Supervisor told me that yes my record shows the reduction, but the DOJ is not recognizing Prop 64 reductions for firearms. I asked for a copy of the document that states this and she couldn't provide one. She kept saying that my charge was too old and the reduction only applies to offenses after November 2015. Clearly they are trying to apply the language of Prop 47 that strictly prohibits firearms rights restorations whereas Prop 64 is for all purposes. Extremely frustrating, re-DROS'd today. An attorney from DOJ was supposed to contact me. That will be 2 weeks ago on Tuesday. Will begin my annoying phone calls again tomorrow morning. Emailed one of the Attorneys that offer to restore firearms rights via Prop 64, he assures me he has been successful in restoring rights, but I have yet to hear from anyone who has actually purchased a gun after a prop 64 reduction. Does anyone know of someone that has been successful? I started my process the Friday after the vote, so I'm pretty sure I'm one of the first to get this far.

Well that sucks! Did you get employee names and ID's of the people you spoke to from DOJ? Who's the attorney you spoke to regarding prop 64 firearm restoration?

I failed DROS in March (I since went back to court to reduce a lower court case number since the DOJ didnt show a DISPO on that one) and then another DROS in June after my live scan showed my prop 64 reduction. I have appealed that DROS and after reading the NICS appeal process you should do the same. If you fail a DROS and do not appeal then the next time you DROS they see that you have a failed DROS and they don't look any further and deny. At least that's the way I interpreted the instructions regarding the appeal.

I havent heard back from DOJ or the FBI after filing my online appeal.

[JeepFiend]

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/p...o-20170522.pdf

See pages 38&43. This isn't a random persons interpretation of the law but actual Cal Justices writing for the state on how cases should be handled.

Actually, it states in there that Prop 64 does restore gun rights, beginning on page 37:

Misdemeanor or infraction for all purposes
Rev.5/17 38
If the court grants the request to resentence the offense as a misdemeanor or infraction,
thereafter the crime will be treated as a misdemeanor or infraction for all purposes.

[grumeazy]

Actually, it states in there that Prop 64 does restore gun rights, beginning on page 37:

Misdemeanor or infraction for all purposes
Rev.5/17 38
If the court grants the request to resentence the offense as a misdemeanor or infraction,
thereafter the crime will be treated as a misdemeanor or infraction for all purposes.

Some one will end up having to sue them and that case will set the precedent for all others. For now they can do whatever they want.

sent from the internets

[Dilexi]

Greetings, I am new to the forum.
I just received my prop 64 court order reducing 11359 to a misdemeanor.
It appears there are still some road blocks!
I suppose I will have to wait and see if I can get a gun

[SkyHawk]

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/p...o-20170522.pdf

I found it interesting that if your original crime was committed at age 18, 19 or 20, you are not eligible for the relief. Because the new MJ legalization law applies only to people age 21+, it would not have applied to someone 18,19,20 and therefore they cannot rewind the clock and apply the new law to their original case.

Some one will end up having to sue them and that case will set the precedent for all others. For now they can do whatever they want.

sent from the internets

That is usually how the CA DOJ rolls. "Don't like it, then sue us...."

[Dilexi]

Response from RGB Law Firm
Thanks for the info.

Have these people confirmed that the Prop 64 redesignation/reduction is properly showing on their DOJ criminal history transcript? In our experience, DOJ has been a minimum of 90 days behind on updating their records after a court-ordered reduction under Prop 64? If the reduction is not showing on the DOJ report, it will result in a purchase denial.

-= Richard Glen Boire

[The Papa]

Response from RGB Law Firm
Thanks for the info.

Have these people confirmed that the Prop 64 redesignation/reduction is properly showing on their DOJ criminal history transcript? In our experience, DOJ has been a minimum of 90 days behind on updating their records after a court-ordered reduction under Prop 64? If the reduction is not showing on the DOJ report, it will result in a purchase denial.

-= Richard Glen Boire

My reduction was reflected on my most recent live scan... still have a denied DROS. I guarantee I have no other disqualifiers.

[Dilexi]

My reduction was reflected on my most recent live scan... still have a denied DROS. I guarantee I have no other disqualifiers.

That's a drag. What do you figure the problem is?

[The Papa]

That's a drag. What do you figure the problem is?

I don't know. I rec'd my FBI NICS appeal letter stating they show I'm still prohibited yet my live scan shows I'm not. They want me to have the agency holding my record send proof to them. I emailed them my current live scan and my official court minutes of 11359 reduction when I filed the appeal... what more could the DOJ give them?????? And of course you can't actually talk to a real person to get help or clarification from either Department.

[doggie]

Please tell us what HS11360 and HS11359 translate into as far as what the original crimes were.

[grumeazy]

Please tell us what HS11360 and HS11359 translate into as far as what the original crimes were.

One is transporting marijuana (11360) and one is possession With the intent to sell (11359)

sent from the internets

[doggie]

One is transporting marijuana (11360) and one is possession With the intent to sell (11359)

sent from the internets

Well that's nuthin, nowadays. I hope you get it reduced.

[Dilexi]

I don't know. I rec'd my FBI NICS appeal letter stating they show I'm still prohibited yet my live scan shows I'm not. They want me to have the agency holding my record send proof to them. I emailed them my current live scan and my official court minutes of 11359 reduction when I filed the appeal... what more could the DOJ give them?????? And of course you can't actually talk to a real person to get help or clarification from either Department.

Government bureaucracy at its worst. The Second Amendment has been so bastardized.
Hoping it all gets resolved soon. Things will work out.

[JeepFiend]

I found it interesting that if your original crime was committed at age 18, 19 or 20, you are not eligible for the relief. Because the new MJ legalization law applies only to people age 21+, it would not have applied to someone 18,19,20 and therefore they cannot rewind the clock and apply the new law to their original case."

My reading is that the provision you mentioned only applies to some laws and doesn't mutually exclude people under 21:

"As to some offenses, to meet this element of eligibility, the
defendant must either have been between the ages of 18 and 21, or over 21 when the crime was committed."

So for instance, 11360 only specifies over the age of 18, and there is no reference to penalties over/under the age of 21. So as long as you were over 18 at the time, you should be eligible. If you were under 18 at the time, it seems likely you would have been charged as a juvenile and be eligible to have the record sealed if you were even convicted of a crime vs. deemed a ward of the court and adjudicated delinquent.

But of course, that's just my interpretation, and it has no bearing on what the DOJ will do.