California refusing to recognize the restoration of firearm rights by courts in other states.

If it doesn't fit the topic in any of the other forums, and is firearm-related, put it here!
User avatar
Suck My Glock
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 363
Joined: May 25th, 2018, 3:01 pm
Reputation: 0
Location: Peoria

California refusing to recognize the restoration of firearm rights by courts in other states.

#1

Post by Suck My Glock » December 26th, 2018, 3:06 pm

https://reason.com/blog/2018/12/26/cali ... dium=email



California Says Residents With Vacated Out-of-State Convictions May Not Own Guns

A federal lawsuit says the state is violating the Second Amendment by refusing to recognize the restoration of firearm rights by courts in other states.

Jacob Sullum|Dec. 26, 2018 9:00 am


While serving in the U.S. Navy more than three decades ago, Chad Linton pleaded guilty to driving under the influence, a misdemeanor, and attempting to evade a police vehicle, a Class C felony, in Island County, Washington. More than four decades ago, when he was 18, Paul Stewart was found guilty of first-degree burglary, a felony, after hopping a fence and stealing tools from an unlocked telephone company truck in Yuma County, Arizona. In both cases, the felony convictions were eventually vacated, and both men's firearm rights were restored.

But not according to the state of California, where Linton and Stewart have long led law-abiding lives. The California Department of Justice (DOJ) maintains that their vacated felony convictions forever disqualify them from buying or possessing guns. Last week Linton and Stewart, joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition and three other gun rights groups, filed a federal lawsuit in San Francisco, arguing that California's policy violates the Second Amendment, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

California law, like federal law, prohibits people with felony convictions from owning firearms. On its face, that provision does not apply to people like Linton and Stewart, since their felony records have been vacated and therefore no longer exist as far the courts of conviction are concerned. Yet the California DOJ has told them that the state does not recognize those legal facts.

Both men, after thinking they had cleared up the matter, have attempted to buy firearms, only to be told that they are not legally allowed to do so in California. In Linton's case, the DOJ's Bureau of Firearms sent agents to his home in San Bernardino County last April and confiscated several guns he had legally purchased (or so he thought) after passing background checks. The complaint says the agents, after seeing Washington court documents showing that Linton's conviction had been vacated and his firearm rights restored, thought his guns should be returned, but they were overruled by Deputy Attorney General Robert Wilson.

According to the complaint, Wilson told Linton's attorney, Adam Richards, during a telephone conversation in September that Linton's only remedy would be a presidential pardon—an odd suggestion, not only because his conviction had been vacated but because the president does not have the power to pardon state crimes. "During our call," Richards said in a December 4 letter to Wilson that is included as an exhibit in the lawsuit, "you stated that the only measure that would restore [Linton's] rights, according to your Department, is a presidential pardon. As I informed you during our conversation, I strongly disagree with the Department's position as I believe it to be arbitrary and capricious for several reasons."

Richards rejected Wilson's argument that California need not take into account the actions of courts in other states. "Your position that Washington orders have no authority over California is irrelevant and misses the crux of the issue," he wrote. "Washington courts are not seeking to modify a California order or case. Instead, the question of whether Mr. Linton was convicted of a felony resides with the jurisdiction in which the conviction allegedly occurred. Mr. Linton has no record in the State of California and now, effectively, has no record in the State of Washington."

The lawsuit says the DOJ's insistence that Linton and Stewart should still be treated as felons under California law represents "a total and permanent deprivation of their fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms and ammunition, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment." Linton et al. argue that the policy "cannot be justified, and therefore fail to satisfy any level or mode of scrutiny at all, let alone the heightened scrutiny that is required to deprive individuals of such fundamental rights."

The complaint says the policy also violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which "requires each State to recognize and give effect to valid judgments rendered by the courts of its sister States," and the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which "was designed to insure to a citizen of State A who ventures into State B the same privileges which the citizens of State B enjoy." Although California itself has a process for restoring the gun rights of people with in-state felony convictions when they are downgraded to misdemeanors, "California refuses to honor the comparable process utilized by other states."

The lawsuit portrays California's treatment of Linton and Stewart as part of a general hostility toward gun ownership. "In their zeal to prohibit as many citizens from owning firearms as possible," it says, California officials are "ignor[ing] the judgments and pronouncements of the courts of other states....The State has no constitutionally permissible interest in depriving individuals of their right to own, possess, and bear firearms for all lawful purposes, including self-defense in their homes, when any underlying convictions were remote, non-violent in nature, and adjudged to have been vacated or set aside in those other jurisdictions.



User avatar
Flash
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 712
Joined: May 16th, 2018, 1:56 pm
Reputation: 3

Re: California refusing to recognize the restoration of firearm rights by courts in other states.

#2

Post by Flash » December 27th, 2018, 6:59 am

What you have here is just another example of people making up the laws as they go. Pretty typical for California in particular and Progressives in general.

User avatar
lew
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 165
Joined: May 23rd, 2018, 5:42 pm
Reputation: 0
Location: Phoenix

Re: California refusing to recognize the restoration of firearm rights by courts in other states.

#3

Post by lew » December 27th, 2018, 10:42 am

We need the border wall not on the Mexican border, but up the Colorado, and then along the NV and OR state lines.

User avatar
i303
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 42
Joined: June 1st, 2018, 12:17 am
Reputation: 1
Location: Phoenix

Re: California refusing to recognize the restoration of firearm rights by courts in other states.

#4

Post by i303 » January 5th, 2019, 8:29 am

The California cancer
If you are going to hate then get know me and hate me more.
Facebook is India Threezerothree
IG is Arizona_twelve_sixtysix
YouTube is Arizona 1266.
You’ll see where I’ve been, what I’ve done and I have no idea where I’m going next.

User avatar
Lobo2087
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 70
Joined: January 14th, 2019, 8:27 pm
Reputation: 1
Location: Surprise

Re: California refusing to recognize the restoration of firearm rights by courts in other states.

#5

Post by Lobo2087 » September 13th, 2019, 2:35 pm

This when human effort replaces manpower and instead of a felon you are a returning resident.

Hello, returning resident I dont want to hurt your feelings with trigger words but I have no problem taking away your rights.

User avatar
Doc Holliday
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 187
Joined: February 24th, 2019, 11:15 am
Reputation: 3
Location: East Side

Re: California refusing to recognize the restoration of firearm rights by courts in other states.

#6

Post by Doc Holliday » September 13th, 2019, 4:07 pm

Doesn't matter if this goes to the SCOTUS, California will just ignore the ruling and keep on doing whatever they want, and it seems no one will do anything about it. We must BREAK California, NY and Illinois by whatever means necessary and FORCE them to honor the Constitution.
Voting Trump in 2020. Libs can suck on that for another four years.

User avatar
Exorpmtech
New to ArizonaShooting.org
New to ArizonaShooting.org
Posts: 15
Joined: August 19th, 2018, 7:09 pm
Reputation: 0
Location: Metro Phoenix

Re: California refusing to recognize the restoration of firearm rights by courts in other states.

#7

Post by Exorpmtech » September 13th, 2019, 8:18 pm

To my knowledge, even if you have your rights restored by the state, you're still forever bared at a federal level; meaning, if you do carry and are legal for that state, you can still never purchase a firearm from a business according to the 4473 and you can be charged with a prohibited possessor charge at a federal level....but wtf do I know, not a lawyer.

User avatar
Flash
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 712
Joined: May 16th, 2018, 1:56 pm
Reputation: 3

Re: California refusing to recognize the restoration of firearm rights by courts in other states.

#8

Post by Flash » September 14th, 2019, 6:43 am

You're right. Question 11.C. Asks if you have ever been convicted in any court of any felony or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation.

Pretty clear verbage.

User avatar
MarkItZero
New to ArizonaShooting.org
New to ArizonaShooting.org
Posts: 7
Joined: September 13th, 2018, 6:52 pm
Reputation: 0
Location: Pima County

Re: California refusing to recognize the restoration of firearm rights by courts in other states.

#9

Post by MarkItZero » September 15th, 2019, 6:32 am

Incorrect, having ones rights restored in state court is recognized by federal courts. These guys getting flagged and prevented from purchasing in CA could literally open ffls in the feds view.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/if-pers ... e-firearms

User avatar
MarkItZero
New to ArizonaShooting.org
New to ArizonaShooting.org
Posts: 7
Joined: September 13th, 2018, 6:52 pm
Reputation: 0
Location: Pima County

Re: California refusing to recognize the restoration of firearm rights by courts in other states.

#10

Post by MarkItZero » September 15th, 2019, 6:36 am

This atf page is referencing misdemeanor dv cases and firearm rights, but the same is true for felonies

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/individ ... e-or-whose

User avatar
shooter444
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 1193
Joined: May 14th, 2018, 1:17 pm
Reputation: 3
Location: S/E Az desert

Re: California refusing to recognize the restoration of firearm rights by courts in other states.

#11

Post by shooter444 » September 15th, 2019, 8:44 am

Flash wrote:
September 14th, 2019, 6:43 am
You're right. Question 11.C. Asks if you have ever been convicted in any court of any felony or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation.

Pretty clear verbage.


Ahhh, yes,... LEGALESE,... what a intriguing aberration!!!

Just to play the Devil's Advocate,... or, God's 8-) ,... the question in highlighter gives the reader the impression that ADMITTING such a legal condition would DISQUALIFY one from a firearm purchase,... but, I have never read that, does that explanation even exist!

Yet,... a Demoscat presidential wanna-be is advocating " FELONS have the RIGHT to vote ",... even from behind bars! Which in reality, VOTING is NOT A RIGHT but a PRIVILEGE, like driving on public highways!

Or, could it be that who ever wrote up this wonderful document, intentionally left out the verbiage concerning whether the individual applying is a CURRENT FELON,.... or, NOT?

Could it be,... that by just asking that question without the clarity, or, transparency, of the possibility that the applicant has been legally CLEARED of FELON STATUS,... a political agenda is being met?

Opens a whole new reality to the Document's verbiage,.... if you ask me! :whistle:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." ... Declaration of Independence

User avatar
Flash
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 712
Joined: May 16th, 2018, 1:56 pm
Reputation: 3

Re: California refusing to recognize the restoration of firearm rights by courts in other states.

#12

Post by Flash » September 15th, 2019, 9:23 am

And if you answer YES to that question, the FFL will automatically disqualify you from the purchase.

Form 4473, Top of the 2nd page says "I understand that a person who answers 'yes' to any of the questions 11.b through 11.i and/or 12.b. through 12.c is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm."

User avatar
shooter444
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 1193
Joined: May 14th, 2018, 1:17 pm
Reputation: 3
Location: S/E Az desert

Re: California refusing to recognize the restoration of firearm rights by courts in other states.

#13

Post by shooter444 » September 15th, 2019, 10:14 am

OK,... but it has been so long since reading one of those things, I have had a CCW for more than a decade and a half, and usually just ask my FFL during a purchase where the odd ball question/answers are so I can get through it quicker. :whistle:

What you say, doesn't quite meet with common sense if a person has been adjudicated a non felon, after being one, at one time, to me.
Last edited by shooter444 on September 15th, 2019, 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." ... Declaration of Independence

User avatar
Flash
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 712
Joined: May 16th, 2018, 1:56 pm
Reputation: 3

Re: California refusing to recognize the restoration of firearm rights by courts in other states.

#14

Post by Flash » September 15th, 2019, 10:47 am

Well, it's government, so it doesn't have to make sense, it just is.

I've also had a CCW for around a decade and a half and when I buy from a dealer which isn't often as I prefer FTF sales, I do the 4473 and was interested enough to download a copy and keep it on my computer for future reference.

User avatar
shooter444
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 1193
Joined: May 14th, 2018, 1:17 pm
Reputation: 3
Location: S/E Az desert

Re: California refusing to recognize the restoration of firearm rights by courts in other states.

#15

Post by shooter444 » September 15th, 2019, 12:58 pm

Good on you Flash,.... I should be a little more on top of such s***,.... but I'm
lazy.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." ... Declaration of Independence

Post Reply

Return to “Firearm Related General Discussion”

cron