141

Amendment.

142

This whole “may issue” nonsense

143

:+1:…

1 Like
144

Oh! You mean the infringement was taken away.

Thanks.

2 Likes
145

Making unconstitutional laws on feelings.

3 Likes
146

Yes, you have successfully stated what I already said.:+1:

147

Yes, I named it correctly.

148

Only under specific factual scenarios.
(1) The person must have been legally entitled to purchase a firearm (i.e. not a felon, not banned by court from owning or possessing, legal age, etc.
(2) The person must have been denied a CCW by not showing necessary need to carry (usually specific threats)

There is an argument to be made about a person convicted of unlawful concealed carry who never applies for a permit on the theory they only carried for general self-protection and not a specific threat. So to some extent the result may hinge on statements the person makes when they’re arrested.

149

Incorrect verbiage. Buying an arm is not am entitlement. Try, “Not be a prohibited person”.

And what that conviction they reverse be for?

150

Thanks for the language change, although I see it as a distinction without a difference.

I’m sure many people with gun possession convictions in my state (CA) will be seeking to withdraw their pleas or findings of guilt. There are issues standing in the way. Under CA law there is 6 month window following a guilty PLEA to seek that remed upon a showing of good cause.

Another avenue is seeking a finding of factual innocence by writ or motion, generally within 2 years of the plea or conviction. The two years can be waived, in particular in case where a statute is deemed retroactively unconstitutional. So “retroactivity” may be a litigated issue.

I can say for the last two years in CA, simple unlawful gun possession misdemeanors have been eligible for judicial diversion with the record wiped clean upon successful completion, usually 3-12 months. That being said, although historically in CA a first offense was almost universally charged as a misdemeanor, hard core DA’s are now charging the offense as a felony in order to circumvent diversion eligibility, only agreeing to a misdemeanor upon a guilty plea or following a term of probation. Even LA’s screaming liberal DA Gascón is doing this exact thing (charging felonies), thus stripping judicial intervention of granting diversion.

151

It is a huge difference.

152

Why?
…

153

I intended “legally entitled” to mean “not prohibited.” Is a 5 year old “prohibited” or “not entitled.”
The application says “eligible” and “ineligible,” and NOT “otherwise prohibited.”
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/pfecapp.pdf

154

Yes, a 5 year-old is a prohibited person.

155

Such convictions carry varying collateral and actual consequences. Can be as simple of denial of the privilege of global entry or as horrific as loss of employment. Every case is different.

156

Convictions of what?

157

I thought I said simple illegal possession of an otherwise legally obtained firearm. For example, a person buys a gun, is in CA and has no permit to carry outside his home, otherwise transports it unlawfully, and gets arrested and convicted for the mere possession (e.g. Penal Code §25850).

In practice, prosecutors lump in possession of illegal acquired firearms absent proof of another underlying crime (e.g. receiving stole property).

158

Nice to have you back

159

Ok, first of all those cases are undoubtedly extremely rare. And what in the SCOTUS ruling do you believe changes that charge?

160

Lump it in with what?