Constitutional Law,
Government,
Civil Litigation
Aug. 23, 2019
Would-be gun owners improperly denied firearms, judge says of California law
California is most likely improperly denying firearms to people whose felony convictions in other states were overturned, a federal judge said Thursday.
SAN FRANCISCO -- California is most likely improperly denying firearms to people whose felony convictions in other states were overturned, a federal judge said Thursday.
U.S. District Judge of San Francisco said the lawsuit is a case of the state misinterpreting statutes to limit firearm possession.
Donato did not issue a final ruling.
Plaintiffs were eligible to purchase firearms by the federal government but not the California Department of Justice. They were convicted of felonies, which were later reduced or dismissed entirely, in Washington and Arizona.
California prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms and ammunition.
Seemingly wary of ruling on potentially precedent-setting Second Amendment issues, Donato said he does not want to "reach constitutional questions" when the case is "relatively straightforward."
The judge agreed with plaintiffs that no state or the federal government considers them convicted felons.
"You're making this a seven-layer cake when one would do," he said to plaintiffs' attorney George Lee.
There is no question plaintiff Chad Linton was not convicted of a federal or California felony, according to Donato. The only mark on his record that could be a basis for denying him a firearm was in Washington, which "ripped that up and said it never happened."
"What case says California can make up a felony?" Donato asked.
State Deputy Attorney General Maureen Onyeagbako responded that Washington can choose to no longer recognize the conviction, but California can still consider it in its eligibility criteria. A Washington judge's order restoring Linton's right to possess firearms does not apply in California, she added.
The attorney said federal judges lack the authority to strike down California's laws because they conflict with other states' statutes.
Donato disagreed because Washington does not consider Linton a convicted felon.
"I'm kind of telegraphing where I'm coming from," he said, adding the lawsuit is not a "classic Second Amendment case."
Plaintiffs accused California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and state Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms Director Martin Horan of constitutional violations and sought a freeze on the policy prohibiting their purchase and possession of firearms. Linton v. Becerra, 18-CV07653 (N.D. Cal., filed Dec. 20, 2018).
While he appreciated the "court seeking the most direct path forward," Lee urged the judge to broaden the applicability and scope of the case. He said this is "not an isolated situation," explaining he has fielded calls from people in similar situations who do not want to come forward as plaintiffs because they might already be in possession of a firearm, which would be in violation of state laws.
"There is a more important principle at stake," he said. "Clearly, we've alleged a policy being employed by the defense that says, 'We're going to disregard any subsequent action on the underlying conviction.'"
The ruling will only apply to the individuals who filed the lawsuit, Donato responded. Although there may be other plaintiffs, he said he plans to issue what will essentially be a bellwether ruling applicable to others.
The judge added that these matters must be handled on a case-by-case basis because it is "extremely unusual to get convictions overturned."
"Everyone's case is very different, and it's very hard to make generalizations when the facts relevant to resolution are so specific to the circumstances of a person," he said.
The lawsuit will not strike down a policy, Donato clarified.
Winston Cho
winston_cho@dailyjournal.com
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com
