161

Good grief – this is about unlawful possession of a firearm outside the home. If one is arrested and charged with such an offense, absent evidence the suspect obtained the firearm through provable theft, receiving stolen property, etc, prosecutors tend to lump everyone together for mere unlawful possession.

Although I’m only talking about the specific Dobbs case, the law also applies to persons in unlawful possession anyplace, in. their car or their home. For example, convicted felons, persons judicially restrained, persons convicted of certain crimes carrying gun possession prohibitions (e.g. vandalism, domestic violence, and mosts other crimes of violence). But I’m not talking about that for purposes of persons wanting to vacate convictions of mere simple unlawful possession outside the home.

162

Thanks :slight_smile:

164

I presume you’re not in CA — since the crime is VERY common here across racial, economic and ethnic lines. I’ve personally represented several hundred people charged with the crime, most of whom legally purchased and owned their firearms. Some example are delivery drivers, cab drivers, unlicensed security guards, people transporting guns in an unlawful manner (e.g. going to a shooting range with firearm under their front seats or in glove compartments).

I think what you see is rare are those who were DENIED carry permits and, despite denials, still carried concealed or in a vehicle i public and were arrested (most commonly following a traffic stop or accident).

As I said, and should preface with many lawyers are going to seek to vacate their clients convictions, an argument can be made that Dobbs applies even to those who never applied for a concealed carry permit. Getting a permit in CA is EXTREMELY difficult. Many police chiefs brag that they’ve never granted even one. I have friends, federal prosecutors, directly threatened by drug cartels, denied carry permits on the theory the threats are general and not specific. Even those who do pass the interview, get the permit, get the required training and list the firearms they want to pack, the permit is only valid for a maximum of one year. And there is authority the “one year” begins on the date of application, even if the process is 3-6 months to be approved. After one year a new application needs to be submitted and approved.

165

That’s nuts. I mean prosecutors are their own people. Sort of.

166

What is common is felon in possession-not impacted by this opinion.

167

You are conflating entirely different situations.

168

You mean like microstamping, which basically makes it nearly impossible to purchase bullets?

169

Oh look one of those unfortunate mistakes🙄

“The office of California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta released the personal information of thousands of California gun owners and concealed carry permit holders to the public this week, and Second Amendment activists see it as a major breach of privacy.”

3 Likes
170

Let’s release a list of aborters and see what happens.

2 Likes
171

Serious question: why does it make it nearly impossible?

172

From the article:

I lived in New York for a decade without fearing for my personal safety. But in recent months, I have been terrified. In May, I filed for and received a temporary order of protection against a former partner.

More than five million American women alive today have reported being threatened with a gun, shot or shot at by an intimate partner, and more than half of the perpetrators of mass shootings in the past decade shot a family member, intimate partner or former intimate partner as part of their rampage. Every month, 70 women on average are shot and killed by an intimate partner. But states like mine make it legally cumbersome to defend yourself with a legally purchased handgun.

If my life is ever in danger, I want to be able to protect myself with a gun. And now, thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, I am one step closer to carrying one.

1 Like
173

Her life is in danger now.

3 Likes
174

Unless you are a criminal. They could care less about carry laws.

175

Is the SCOTUS done dishing up freedom for now?

176

Not quite. :smile:

Refer to the thread I just posted.

177

I just saw it! :crossed_fingers:

178

Struggling so hard.

179

They won’t…

180

Note the portions of this new law that still require the applicant to prove subjective qualities, open to interpretation by government officials. It is just a work-around to try and maintain prior permission from government to exercise a constitutional right.

1 Like
181

Sounds like they are trying to defy the SC ruling. This law should be carried to the SC as well.

I heard Hochul on the radio one day this week. She very angrily and loudly said she wanted action and wanted it now!

Sounds very arrogant for a woman who hasn’t even won an election to be governor.

1 Like