Articles Posted in Gun Charges

You went to court. You got the judge’s signature. You have an order directing the return of your firearms — but when you show up to reclaim them, the police tell you that you still need a Certificate of Eligibility from the California Department of Justice before they will hand anything over.

It feels like bureaucratic obstruction. In a sense, it is — but it’s obstruction that has a clear legal basis, and understanding why it exists is the first step toward navigating it successfully.

The Short Answer: A Court Order Answers a Property Question. The COE Answers a Safety Question.

A firearms charge in California can unravel your life in ways most people do not anticipate. Beyond the obvious criminal exposure, a conviction can end careers, revoke professional licenses, and permanently strip your Second Amendment rights. Understanding what prosecutors must prove — and where the law gives your defense attorney room to work — is the first step toward protecting yourself.

This overview covers the most common firearms offenses charged in Orange County and across California: unlawful possession, negligent or unlawful discharge, and the sentence-multiplying effect of a prior conviction on your record.

Firearms Possession Offenses

Ghost guns present a considerable threat to gun control laws. Ghost guns are guns that are assembled by component parts bought online. These guns are increasingly posing a challenge to law enforcement and to public safety. The component parts, essentially a gun kit, are available online for anyone to purchase.  The criminal use of ghost guns is an increasing menace and something that we will hear more about in coming months and years. These guns have been linked to hundreds of shootings, including murders; unfortunately, the use of ghost guns is rising.

Ghost gun kits or components are typically purchased online and assembled at home. Assembled ghost guns are also being sold on the street. There are no age restrictions or background checks for purchasing ghost gun kits or component parts. Once assembled, the gun has no serial number, making the gun difficult to trace. Given their ease of acquisition, ghost guns are particularly popular among teens, although they are being used in crimes committed by adults as well.

Assembling a homemade gun is not illegal. Building homemade guns has long been a tradition in the United States among hobbyists and gun enthusiasts. Ghost guns, however, do not require the skill and knowledge that is required to build a homemade gun from scratch. Ghost guns are simple enough for a kid to put together without any skills in the gun making process. The companies who sell the parts to make the gun usually sell the unfinished frame and/or receivers, about 80 percent of the gun’s component parts, while the remaining 20 percent of the gun requires simple manufacturing processes that can be done at home.

2018 saw major change on California’s statute books, many within the criminal law arena. Below are some of the changes in law that impact those who may be facing criminal charges and those who have already been convicted.

JOB APPLICANTS WITH CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS

You may have heard the term “Ban the Box.” This term refers to new legislation in California that now prohibits an employer with five or more employees from requiring a job applicant to disclose past criminal convictions during the application process.  Practically speaking, the new law prohibits most employers from including “the box” on an employment application that asks if the applicant has ever been convicted of a crime. The law now also prohibits the employer from asking the applicant about his or her criminal history during the interviewing process. It is only after an employer makes a conditional offer of employment that the employer can ask the potential employee about previous criminal convictions. If the employer then rescinds the conditional offer, the employer must inform the prospective employee in writing with an explanation of why the offer is being rescinded. The law allows the applicant to dispute the evidence provided by the employer in the notice and the employer must consider the applicants submission.

Under California Penal Code section 12022.5, when a person uses a firearm during the commission of a felony, he or she will almost certainly be charged not only with the felony conduct but also with an enhancement for the use of the firearm. The firearm need not be engaged or even operable for the enhancement to attach. If the defendant is convicted of the felony and the firearm enhancement is found or admitted to be true, the law requires the court to add an additional and consecutive term to the sentence. The term, depending on the type of firearm used and on the underlying crime, can range from 3 years imprisonment up to 20 years. The sentence is mandatory.

For example, a person convicted of felony assault with a non-assault weapon firearm will face a sentence of 2, 3 or 4 years in prison. But because he or she used a firearm, on top of that sentence, will be an additional 3, 4, or 10 years for use of the firearm. The court can choose the low, middle, or high term depending on a variety of factors but the court must order at least the low term.

Beginning January 1, 2018, changes to Penal Code section 12022.5 go into effect that will give more discretion to the court. The bill, which was signed into law by Governor Brown last week, that makes these changes was introduced after a California senator recognized the inequitable result when a 17-year-old was convicted for a drive-by shooting. The teen was in the car but denied that he was the one who shot the gun. Following the conviction, the judge had no choice but to sentence the teen to 25 years in prison because of the enhancement.

Police Chase Suspect Into Backyard Hot Tub

A 29-year-old Anaheim man was arrested after Placentia police chased him into an Anaheim neighborhood and then discovered him hiding in a hot tub in the backyard of a residence.

The incident began around 5:00 a.m. when police attempted to pull over an individual in a Mustang. However, the driver ignored the officers’ instructions to pull over. At some point, a passenger in the Mustang jumped out and was detained by the officers, as the Mustang continued driving southbound on Kramer Boulevard and onto the westbound 91 freeway.

CALIFORNIA ENDS GRAND JURY HEARINGS IN FATAL POLICE SHOOTINGS

California is the first state to announce that it will ban grand juries in the preliminary determination on whether a law enforcement office should face criminal charges after killing someone in the line of duty. The reasoning behind the ban, which goes into effect next year, is to end public suspicion fostered by the secrecy of the grand jury process. The new law only affects criminal hearings on matters in which a police officer has killed a person in the line of duty.

In California, a grand jury is composed of a panel of citizens from each county, who serve for a set period of time. Each California county selects and empanels grand juries according to that county’s rules and grand juries can hear both criminal and civil matters. In criminal matters, a grand jury hears evidence and testimony presented by the prosecution and then decides whether there is enough evidence to indict.

This process is different from the more common form of criminal prosecution in California wherein the district attorney files a complaint against the person accused of the crime and following that, a judge hears the evidence in a preliminary hearing. While the prosecutor presents the evidence, a defense attorney is present to represent the person charged and can cross-examine witnesses. The defense attorney is also able to argue to the court that the evidence is not sufficient to “bind over” the defendant for trial. The judge determines whether the evidence tends towards a reasonable suspicion that the person (or persons) committed the crime. If the judge finds the evidence sufficient, the prosecutor will then file the charging document. There are some variations on this process, but this is the general scheme.

Continue reading →

Penal Code Chapter 2.9C 1001.80 Pretrial Diversion For Firearm Offenses

The Legislature has introduced a new bill that will establish a pretrial diversion education program for those who are arrested for nonviolent misdemeanor or felony firearms offenses. The bill will specify the guidelines and define the criteria, application and procedures related to the diversion program. The bill will further define the procedural elements associated with a dismissal of charges and elimination of an arrest, for purposes of criminal records. Along with these parameters, the bill will authorize the imposition of any costs and fines associated with the diversion program.

In recognizing the complexity of California firearm statutes and implementing regulations and the confusion created thereby, it is being recommended that a pretrial diversion education program be created. This education program would be an alternative to prosecution for those who qualify, meaning nonviolent firearm offenses.

Continue reading →

As a Criminal Defense Lawyer, practicing law for more than 20 years in Orange County California, I am often asked about the law as it pertains to legally carrying a concealed weapon.   I have represented hundreds of individuals who have been charged with illegally carrying a concealed weapon.  While it is legal to buy, carry, and conceal a weapon in California, there are strict rules in doing so and strict rules as to who may obtain a license to do so.  Here is some information pertaining to applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon (CCW) and an explanation of who may and may not carry a concealed weapon.

California Penal Code sections 26150 and 26155 provides that a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed, may be issued to an individual but,  a statewide standard application form must be completed and approved.

Who May be Issued a License:

California is not doing enough to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill, according to a state audit released on October 24. The breakdown is a result of the state’s failure to report a person’s mental health status to the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Why is this happening, especially in light of the ever-increasing acts of gun violence involving the mental ill, begs closer examination. The first step in looking at this issue more closely begins with the Superior courts around the state. When an individual is convicted of certain crimes, he or she loses the right to carry or possess or own a firearm. Crimes like domestic violence, restraining order violations and enumerated assault and gun possession and use offenses will cause revocation of the right.

Theoretically, the courts should automatically notify the state Department of Justice. But of the 34 courts surveyed, most weren’t even aware they had the reporting obligation, nor did they send notice of convictions to the Mental Health unit at the DOJ. Over a three-year period, 2,300 prohibited individuals did not get reported. Some courts did submit reports but they were incomplete in different ways.

Contact Information