Misdemeanor Battery Results In Firearms Ban

California has its own tough restrictions on firearms when a person is convicted of criminal acts, the federal ban is even tougher. In this case the convicted defendant sought to restore his rights to own and possess a gun in California but was denied relief even though his crime was not technically domestic violence.

Here are the pertinent facts of the case entitled James vs. California: After his arrest in 1996 for spousal battery (Pen. Code, § 273.5), James pled nolo contendere to misdemeanor battery. In 2008, James applied to be a reserve deputy sheriff and learned the State of California considered his conviction to be a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (MCDV), rendering him ineligible. In 2011, his application to purchase a gun was denied because of the conviction. He sought mandate directing the State of California to declare him not to have suffered an MCDV, claiming a section 242 violation was not a valid categorical predicate offense for this classification. The trial court granted the petition, concluding that misdemeanor battery was not an MCDV, as it can be committed by “the slightest touching,” while the federal statute requires the violent use of force against the person of another. The State appealed. Held: Reversed. The federal Gun Control Act prohibits any person convicted of an MCDV from possessing a gun. (18 USC § 922(g)(9).) The Act defines an MCDV as an offense that (1) is a misdemeanor under state law; (2) “has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon;” and (3) is committed by the victim’s current or former spouse. (18 USC § 922(a)(33)(A).) In Castleman the Court concluded that the requirement of “force” under section 922(a)(33)(A) is satisfied “by the degree of force that supports a common-law battery conviction,” i.e., the slightest offensive touching. Section 242 defines a battery as any willful and unlawful use of force against another person. Applying The United States Supreme Court definition of “physical force,” the California court here concluded that a violation of section 242 has, as an element, the use of physical force. CCAP.

About thetorranceattorney

Matthew Ruff is a Torrance criminal defense attorney located near the 405 freeway on Crenshaw Blvd. Focusing on DUI and serious criminal cases for over twenty years. In addition to criminal cases, Matthew also defends clients at the DMV.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s