RecordGone.com has posted a useful article about how to restore your right to possess a firearm in Pennsylvania.
The Gun Control Act of 1968, a Federal law, prohibits anyone who has been convicted of a felony, a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years in prison, or a domestic-violence misdemeanor from purchasing or possessing a firearm. This ban does not include any convictions that have been expunged, set aside, pardoned, or for which the person has had his civil rights restored. Civil rights means the right to vote, run for office, and serve on a jury. Pennsylvania state law also prohibits anyone who has been convicted of certain crimes from purchasing or possessing a firearm.
Therefore, if you were convicted of a felony and lost the right to serve on a jury or hold public office and have not been granted a pardon, then the federal law will prohibit you from owning or possessing a firearm even if a Pennsylvania court restores your firearm rights. If your convictions are not eligible for judicial expungement at this time and the federal firearm prohibition applies, the only way for you to fully restore your gun rights is to apply for and receive a pardon from the governor of Pennsylvania.
To read more about who loses their right to possess a firearm and how to restore that right, read the particle posted at URL. If you need help determining if you are eligible for expungement, visit http://www.Recordgone.com
Showing posts with label expunge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label expunge. Show all posts
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Expunge Infractions In California
Effective on January 1, 2011, California will allow expungement of infractions 1 year after the person was sentenced. To have you infraction expunged, please The Law Firm of Higbee & Associates (RecordGone.com) at 877-573-7273. Higbee & Associates charges $595 for infraction expungement and offers a money back guarantee.
Expungement of infractions will be done pursuant to the recently modified Penal Code 1203.4a.
Revised 1203.4a Effective 1/1/2011 allows for expungement of infractions:
(a) Every defendant convicted of a misdemeanor and not granted probation, and every defendant convicted of an infraction, shall, at any time after the lapse of one year from the date of pronouncement of judgment, if he or she has fully complied with and performed the sentence of the court, is not then serving a sentence for any offense and is not under charge of commission of any crime and has, since the pronouncement of judgment, lived an honest and up-right life and has conformed to and obeyed the laws of the land, be permitted by the court to withdraw his or her plea of guilty or nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty; or if he or she has been convicted after a plea of not guilty, the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and in either case the court shall thereupon dismiss the accu-satory pleading against the defendant, who shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted, except as provided in Section 12021.1 of this code or Sec-tion 13555 of the Vehicle Code. The defendant shall be informed of the provisions of this section, either orally or in writing, at the time he or she is sentenced. The defendant may make an application and change of plea in person or by attorney, or by the probation officer authorized in writing; provided, that in any subsequent prosecution of the defendant for any other offense, the prior conviction may be pleaded and proved and shall have the same effect as if relief had not been granted pursuant to this section.
Expungement of infractions will be done pursuant to the recently modified Penal Code 1203.4a.
Revised 1203.4a Effective 1/1/2011 allows for expungement of infractions:
(a) Every defendant convicted of a misdemeanor and not granted probation, and every defendant convicted of an infraction, shall, at any time after the lapse of one year from the date of pronouncement of judgment, if he or she has fully complied with and performed the sentence of the court, is not then serving a sentence for any offense and is not under charge of commission of any crime and has, since the pronouncement of judgment, lived an honest and up-right life and has conformed to and obeyed the laws of the land, be permitted by the court to withdraw his or her plea of guilty or nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty; or if he or she has been convicted after a plea of not guilty, the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and in either case the court shall thereupon dismiss the accu-satory pleading against the defendant, who shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted, except as provided in Section 12021.1 of this code or Sec-tion 13555 of the Vehicle Code. The defendant shall be informed of the provisions of this section, either orally or in writing, at the time he or she is sentenced. The defendant may make an application and change of plea in person or by attorney, or by the probation officer authorized in writing; provided, that in any subsequent prosecution of the defendant for any other offense, the prior conviction may be pleaded and proved and shall have the same effect as if relief had not been granted pursuant to this section.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Expungement of Infractions in California
Quick note.... California Penal Code 1203.4 does not allow expungement of offenses that are classified as infactions. The legislature probably deemed infractions too insignificant to justify the burden placed on the court. However, in the post-9-11 economy, background checks are utilized by more than 80 percent of employers. Our law firm receives several requests to expunge infractions a month from people who were denied employment because of an infraction.
To date, we have not challenged this law. However, reading some case law leads me to think that a challenge based on equal protection grounds might be successful.
In particularly, Newland v. Board of Governors of California Community Colleges, 19 Cal.3d 705, 566 P.2d 254
"We turn therefore to plaintiff's argument that the statutory requirement for a certificate of rehabilitation denies misdemeanants to equal protection of the law because it discriminates in favor of felons and against misdemeanants. The decisions clearly hold that a legislative classification, such as that involved here, violates the constitutional requirement of equal protection of the law unless it rationally relates to a legitimate state purpose. Neither our cases nor those of the United States Supreme Court have settled on a particular verbal formula to express this proposition. Some decisions require that the classification ‘bear some rational relationship to a conceivable legitimate state purpose’ ( D'Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974), 11 Cal.3d 1, 16, Cal.Rptr. 786, 797, 520 P.2d 10, 21); others that the classification must rest upon ‘some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation’ ( Reed v. Reed (1971), 404 U.S. 71, 75-76, 92 S.Ct. 251, 254, 30 L.Ed.2d 225; Brown v. Merlo (1973), 8 Cal.3d 855, 861, 106 Cal.Rptr. 388, 506 P.2d 212)."
And..
"This statutory discrimination against misdemeanants can claim no rational relationship to the protective purpose of section 13220.16. This amendment stands as a legislative recognition that many of the persons barred for life under the unamended version of section 13220.16 were fit to teach. The Legislature could not possibly or sensibly have concluded that misdemeanants, as opposed to felons, constitute a class of particularly incorrigible offenders who are beyond hope of rehabilitation."
The logic in Newland may successfully be applied to a Constitutional challenge to Penal Code section 1203.4 denial of relief to those convicted of infractions.
Check back in the future as we expand this topic or post details on a challenge.
To date, we have not challenged this law. However, reading some case law leads me to think that a challenge based on equal protection grounds might be successful.
In particularly, Newland v. Board of Governors of California Community Colleges, 19 Cal.3d 705, 566 P.2d 254
"We turn therefore to plaintiff's argument that the statutory requirement for a certificate of rehabilitation denies misdemeanants to equal protection of the law because it discriminates in favor of felons and against misdemeanants. The decisions clearly hold that a legislative classification, such as that involved here, violates the constitutional requirement of equal protection of the law unless it rationally relates to a legitimate state purpose. Neither our cases nor those of the United States Supreme Court have settled on a particular verbal formula to express this proposition. Some decisions require that the classification ‘bear some rational relationship to a conceivable legitimate state purpose’ ( D'Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974), 11 Cal.3d 1, 16, Cal.Rptr. 786, 797, 520 P.2d 10, 21); others that the classification must rest upon ‘some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation’ ( Reed v. Reed (1971), 404 U.S. 71, 75-76, 92 S.Ct. 251, 254, 30 L.Ed.2d 225; Brown v. Merlo (1973), 8 Cal.3d 855, 861, 106 Cal.Rptr. 388, 506 P.2d 212)."
And..
"This statutory discrimination against misdemeanants can claim no rational relationship to the protective purpose of section 13220.16. This amendment stands as a legislative recognition that many of the persons barred for life under the unamended version of section 13220.16 were fit to teach. The Legislature could not possibly or sensibly have concluded that misdemeanants, as opposed to felons, constitute a class of particularly incorrigible offenders who are beyond hope of rehabilitation."
The logic in Newland may successfully be applied to a Constitutional challenge to Penal Code section 1203.4 denial of relief to those convicted of infractions.
Check back in the future as we expand this topic or post details on a challenge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
