Which crimes can affect my gun ownership or gun possession rights?

Most people have a basic understanding that federal law makes it illegal to possess a firearm if you have been convicted of a (1) state or federal felony, (2) any state felony for which you were in jail for longer than one year, (3) any misdemeanor crime involving domestic violence, or (4) any misdemeanor offense potentially punishable by imprisonment for more than two years.

Unfortunately, your rights to possess a firearm can also be limited in certain situations that do not involve convictions.  These situations include those in which you (1) have been adjudicated to be “mentally defective” within the past five years, (2) have been committed involuntarily to a mental institution within the past five years, (3) are subject to a restraining order, TRO, or stay way order that prohibits you from stalking, harassing or threatening either your partner, child or your partner’s child, (4) are an undocumented immigrant, (5)  received a dishonorable discharge from the military, (6) are being currently charged with a felony, (7) have an active criminal warrant, or (8) have an addiction to any controlled substance.

California law furthers bans you from ever[1] possessing a firearm if you (1) have been convicted of any felony, unless it was later reduced to a misdemeanor, (2) have two or more convictions for brandishing a firearm, (3) are addicted to any narcotic, or (4) have been convicted of any number of “violent” offenses, including murder, rape, lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 years, and felony in which a gun was used, or great bodily injury was inflicted.[2]  Additionally, in California you face a ten-year ban on possessing a gun if you have a misdemeanor conviction for crimes such as assault, battery, assault with a deadly weapon, witness intimidation, threatening public officials, discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner, or drawing or exhibiting a firearm in a deadly manner.

The list of crimes, above, affecting your gun rights is not meant to be exclusive, but merely cites the most common crimes seen in our area. If you have a criminal conviction and would like to know for sure whether you are allowed to purchase or possess a firearm you can file an application with the Department of Justice. Once you have completed this form, you need to submit it to the Department of Justice with a copy of your fingerprints, as instructed.

What do I need to know if I have a conviction for one of the crimes mentioned above?

If you have a conviction for one of the crimes mentioned above, the first thing you need to understand is what a prohibition on gun possession means. What it means is that, first and foremost, you should not purchase or attempt to purchase guns or ammunition. You should not live in or stay at a house in which anyone has guns or ammunition on the property. You should not get into a car with anyone who has guns or ammunition with them.

Further, be aware that having your conviction expunged does not reinstate your right to possess a firearm.

The laws surrounding gun ownership and possession in California can be complex. In short, if you are unsure if your criminal conviction has affected your rights to own or possess firearms, do not attempt to purchase a gun. If you’ve been charged with a weapons charge in Sonoma County, contact our Santa Rosa weapons charges lawyers today.

For more information, see www.ag.ca.gov/firearms

[1] If you were convicted of any of the offenses listed here as a juvenile, you are prohibited from possession of a firearm until you are 30 years old.

[2] For a complete list of “violent offenses” see California Penal Code § 29905.

The Fourth Amendment protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.  However, it is well established within the law that the police are allowed to come to our front doors without a search warrant. Why? Because it is implicit in our social contract that visitors, including the police, are free to “approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave.”[1] In short, although the police are able to search parts of your property when they enter to approach the front door, that search is presumptively reasonable. Although the police need to be careful not to exceed the scope of this limited license to enter our private property, any evidence they gather or observations they make as part of walking to and from our doors can be used against us.

Also, the police are allowed to use drug-sniffing dogs to detect narcotics, concealed in all types of containers, when you are out in public. This is so, the Supreme Court states, as the dog sniff provides very limited information to officers and citizens have no legitimate private interest in contraband. Because no privacy interest is violated, these types of searches are also reasonable.[2]

But are the police allowed to bring a drug-sniffing dog to your door?  Would that type of search still be deemed “reasonable?”  In Florida v. Jardines, decided in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court answered “no.”

The case arose in 2006 when the Police Department received an anonymous tip that Joelis Jardines was growing marijuana his home.  In response, two officers and a trained drug detection dog went to the house, and the dog almost immediately alerted to the scent of marijuana. Armed with this knowledge, the police applied for and received a search warrant.  After discovering drugs were, indeed, being grown there, Mr. Jardines was charged with trafficking marijuana.

At trial, Jardines’s lawyer moved to suppress the evidence seized from the home, arguing that the drug dog’s sniff at the front door was an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, so any evidence that resulted from that sniff—including the resulting search warrant—was “fruit of the poisonous tree,” and thus inadmissible. This issue went all the way to the Supreme Court with the defendant arguing that the dog’s sniff was a substantial government intrusion into the home—albeit only onto the porch—and therefore constituted a search, and the government stating that as the police were free to go to a person’s front door, and it is not a “search” under the Fourth Amendment for a dog to sniff a person’s belongings in public, no illegal search had occurred.

Drawing a crucial distinction between the luggage at an airport[3], a car on a public street,[4] and the home, Jardines was quick to point out that the Supreme Court has always afforded privacy within the home the highest levels of protection, allowing intrusions against this privacy only with a valid search warrant. Thus, while the police can lawfully arrive at a person’s front door, and can lawfully use a specialized “tool,” a trained dog in this case, to investigate into the contents of containers outside the confines of a residence, the police need a warrant to use that same “tool” to investigate the contents of a home.[5]  As Justice Scalia stated “To find a visitor knocking on the door is routine (even if sometimes unwelcome); to spot that same visitor exploring the front path with a metal detector, or marching his bloodhound into the garden before saying hello and asking permission, would inspire most of us to—well, call the police.”[6]