How a Gun Charge Lawyer Challenges Prohibited Firearm Possession

Penal Code § 29800(a)(1) generally prohibits firearm possession following qualifying felony convictions and certain other prohibited statuses. Completing a sentence does not end the restriction. Special rules apply to some federal and out-of-state convictions.

Under § 29805, many listed misdemeanors trigger a ten-year prohibition from the conviction date. A misdemeanor conviction under § 273.5 on or after January 1, 2019, carries a lifetime prohibition under California law.

Penal Code § 29825 addresses firearm restrictions imposed by specified court orders. Subsection (a) covers purchasing, receiving, or attempting to acquire firearms, while subsection (b) addresses ownership or possession. The order's validity, effective dates, and required knowledge are central to the charge.

Federal law separately restricts possession under qualifying protective orders through 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). State and federal firearm ownership restrictions must be considered independently.

Certified judgments, court minutes, and sentencing records establish the offense, conviction date, and identity of the accused. Later orders may document reductions, vacaturs, or other changes.

A qualifying felony reduction under Penal Code § 17(b) may affect firearm eligibility, although independent restrictions may remain.

Protective orders identify the restrained person, prohibited conduct, and effective period. Extensions or termination orders may affect whether the restriction applied on the alleged possession date.

For a § 29825 charge, prosecutors must prove the prohibited firearm conduct, the defendant's knowledge of that conduct, and knowledge of the court order. CALCRIM No. 2512 addresses these elements.

CALCRIM Nos. 2510 and 2511 address conviction-based firearm possession charges, depending on whether the defendant stipulates to the prior conviction. Prosecutors must prove knowing possession or control, not knowledge that the conduct was unlawful.

A firearm found in a shared vehicle or residence does not establish possession by every occupant. Access, statements, and conduct may indicate control.

Fingerprints, DNA, surveillance footage, and witness accounts may connect an accused person to a firearm. Evidence of contact does not necessarily establish possession at the charged time.

Penal Code § 1538.5 allows defendants to challenge evidence obtained through unlawful searches or seizures. Whether suppression is available depends on the circumstances, applicable Fourth Amendment rules, and the defendant's ability to challenge the search.

These criminal evidence and trial procedures may affect whether firearm evidence is admissible. A warrantless search is not automatically unlawful.

Dismissal under Penal Code § 1203.4 generally does not restore firearm rights. A qualifying reduction under § 17(b) or gubernatorial pardon may have different effects, subject to continuing restrictions.

Relief granted after the alleged possession does not necessarily eliminate liability for earlier conduct.

Federal prohibitions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) operate independently of state law. Section 921(a)(20) addresses how certain pardons, expungements, set-asides, and restorations of civil rights affect conviction-based federal restrictions.

The Department of Justice established a restoration process under § 925(c). Invited applications began September 25, 2026, and the first general application phase is scheduled for November 4, 2026, initially limited to 5,000 applicants. Approval is not automatic, and federal relief does not independently remove California restrictions.

In Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (2019), the Supreme Court required federal prosecutors under § 922(g) to prove knowledge of the relevant prohibited status, not knowledge that possession was unlawful. That federal requirement does not automatically govern a California § 29800 charge.