On May 6, 2013, the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeals ruled that certain people convicted of violating California Penal Code section 242 (battery) are not prohibited from possessing firearms under the federal law that prohibits those with a conviction for a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” (MCDV) from possessing firearms. Shirey v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission, (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1 [156 Cal.Rptr.3d 517].

The decision clarifies that thousands of Californians previously thought to be prohibited from possessing firearms are not prohibited after all.

The State of California sought review of the Shirey decision by the California Supreme Court. DOJ also sought to have the case depublished so that it would not have a binding effect on lower courts. Thankfully, the California Supreme Court denied both requests. Such a denial often indicates that the lower court’s analysis is correct and should remain binding precedent. The State may appeal this case to the United States Supreme Court, if they do, this case is unlikely to interest the high court.

As a result of this ruling, a person convicted of a misdemeanor 242 (and 243(e))1 should not be considered prohibited for a federal MCDV if the level of force used was minimal or the DOJ cannot determine what level of force was used. Nevertheless, we expect that DOJ will still continue to consider people prohibited from possessing firearms or delay their firearm transaction until the individual can prove otherwise.

People who are uncertain of their eligibility to possess and own firearms in California should request a Personal Firearms Eligibility Check using the form provided by the California Department of Justice website. You should never attempt to purchase a firearm in order to test your eligibility in California. California is being particularly aggressive in seizing firearms from people prohibited from possessing them. Many people

  • Smart gun company in corporate restructuring May 22, 2015 CGL AdminThe upheaval is deepening around the German maker of a controversial new smart gun. Armatix, based near Munich, is undergoing a “corporate restructuring,” according to a statement Thursday from a company spokesman. Details were not immediately available from German courts, but the spokesman said the move was “not an insolvency proceeding.” Financial records reported to German authorities show ...
  • (D.C.) D.C. weighing appeal of court ruling that loosens gun control law May 22, 2015 CGL AdminA defeat this week for gun restrictions in the District has once again thrust the city into a national battle over the Second Amendment that could test the legal limits of not only gun controls but also gun rights. A federal judge on Monday ruled unconstitutional a District law requiring a “good reason” to be granted ...
  • Feds Seize Hundreds of Assault Rifle Parts From Gun-Maker May 21, 2015 CGL AdminFederal authorities are investigating a Connecticut gun-maker after agents found nearly 3,000 assault rifle parts missing serial numbers, according to recently filed court documents. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents seized nearly 300 of the AR-15 parts from Stag Arms in September following routine inspections, prosecutors said. At the time, the father of Stag ...
  • (TX) Campus Carry Faces Last Hurdle in Legislature May 21, 2015 CGL AdminWith less than two weeks left in the legislative session, the Texas House is all that is keeping a stalled measure requiring public universities and colleges to allow concealed handguns on their campuses from reaching the governor’s desk. So-called campus carry could travel one of two routes to clear that chamber, passing as stand-alone legislation or as an ...
  • (CA) San Francisco gun lock requirement case up for Supreme Court review May 20, 2015 CGL AdminThis week the highest court in the land has scheduled review of a case backed by gun rights groups and 26 states challenging San Francisco’s law requiring guns to be locked up, even at home. This comes in the latest installment of the saga over Jackson v. City of San Francisco, which was unanimously rejected by ...

Comments (1)

  • michael canepa


    Great article and good news, please keep me on your e-mailing list.

    PS Been affiliated with the NRA since 1949 and just renewed my membership !!!


Leave a comment