CALGUNLAWS NEWS

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

  • (DC) Judge puts D.C. Handgun Ruling on Hold July 29, 2014 CGL AdminA federal judge on Tuesday put on hold his decision invalidating the District’s long-standing ban on carrying handguns in public places. The judge’s stay, in effect for 90 days, gives city officials and D.C. police officers some breathing room to respond to his ruling that overturned the District’s primary gun-control law. By Ann E. Marimow | Washington Post | ...
  • (CA) Stop Fighting Peruta vs. San Diego July 29, 2014 CGL AdminOn Thursday, July 24, 2014, Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. issued a Summary Judgment Order affirming that the 2nd Amendment confers a right to “bear arms” outside the home. The order was nothing short of devastating to the District of Columbia which has been resisting and delaying compliance with legal decisions on this issue for ...
  • (DC) Licensed handgun carry now legal in District of Columbia: Palmer v. DC July 28, 2014 CGL AdminOn Saturday afternoon, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled unconstitutional the District’s absolute prohibition on the carrying of handguns outside the home for lawful self-defense, in the case of Palmer v. District of Columbia. By David Kopel | The Washington Post | Article Source The District Court did not issue a stay, but the D.C. ...
  • (OK) Tulsa County Judges Train With Firearms July 28, 2014 CGL AdminSeveral Tulsa County judges were at the range on Thursday shooting, pistols, a rifle and an AR-15. The sheriff’s office wants to make sure those judges who want to carry guns have access to expert, individualized training. The point of having the Tulsa County judges out there shooting is twofold. The Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office wants to ...
  • (TN) Senator: Rule could ‘Take Away Our Guns’ July 28, 2014 CGL AdminSen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) is sounding the alarm about a new rule from the Obama administration that he warns could “take away our guns.” Alexander is concerned about the Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) controversial ivory ban, which aims to stop African elephant poaching. He says the rule could have the unintended consequence of restricting the ...

Leave a comment