Opinion By Matthew D. Cubeiro
California – -(AmmoLand.com)- Our law firm is typically contacted by people in search of to preserve or restore their Second Amendment rights.
Some people are prohibited from owning or possessing firearms simply because of a prior criminal conviction, or by a restraining order they may well not even know about, or for other motives, and we can typically aid. Far extra typically than you could anticipate, men and women are denied their rights just simply because the California Division of Justice’s (“DOJ”) records are out of date, inaccurate, or incomplete. In these instances, resolving the problem typically needs supplying DOJ with updated info. Usually, DOJ refuses to do the perform to update their records and insists that the person receive and supply the info to DOJ.
Why should really the burden rest on the person to prove to the government they are not prohibited from working out their constitutionally protected rights?
Great query. And a single which is getting asked at this incredibly moment in the context of California’s ammunition sales restrictions. California Rifle & Pistol Association: CRPA, with assistance from the NRA, filed a lawsuit titled Rhode v. Becerra difficult these restrictions as a violation of the Second Amendment and Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. When the ammunition transaction background verify needs took impact this previous July , extra than 20% of law-abiding citizens attempting to acquire ammunition in California had been denied due to outdated or incomplete records maintained by DOJ. In response, the plaintiffs in Rhode have now filed a motion for an injunction, noting that DOJ “has the burden to prove that a individual is not entitled to workout a right—not the other way about.”
DOJ’s inaccurate and outdated databases are not the only troubles some California residents have been forced to deal with. Quite a few law-abiding gun owners have been contacted by armed DOJ agents who mistakenly believed they had been prohibited. Other people who are in truth prohibited have also been contacted simply because DOJ mistakenly believed they are in possession of a firearm previously seized by a further law enforcement agency, regardless of the individual also informing DOJ—below penalty of perjury—that they no longer possessed the firearm. Such stories are amongst of dozens of examples that illustrate the bureaucratic mess that is the DOJ Bureau of Firearms.
Just when you believed items can not get any worse, DOJ now seems to involve “Other” as justification to deny a individual their Second Amendment rights. See for oneself:
The letter goes on to state that if the individual wishes “to challenge the accuracy” of DOJ’s determination, they should really undergo Reside Scan fingerprinting to receive and evaluation their criminal records.
But what fantastic will that do, precisely? How can the individual in this case challenge DOJ’s prohibited individual determination when they do not even know what that determination is primarily based on?
Sadly, it is a further shameful show of bureaucratic sloth from California’s prime law enforcement agency.
Matthew D. Cubeiro is a California lawyer who serves as Particular Counsel for Michel & Associates, P.C. His major practice locations includes firearm-connected regulatory compliance, and is co-author of California gun Laws: A Guide to State and Federal Firearm Regulations.