Bogus 5150 event, CA ownership ban, moving to MI- can I purchase/own?

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

OCMusicJunkie

Inactive
Hi everyone- I know this is my first post here, but I'd greatly appreciate the help of anyone who knows for certain what my gun rights might be given my situation...

I had an ex-girlfriend call in a completely false report that I had been threatening myself if she moved out of our apartment. She used the time it took me to convince everyone I was sane (about 5 minutes per person, but 48 hours in the system) to pack up and move, skipping out on paying anything for the remaining months of the lease we both signed. Even though I was out before the 72-hours was even up, I still am subject to a 5-year ban on owning a gun in CA. This was recent and I still have the opportunity to fight it via court hearing in front of a judge, but I am moving out of state and really couldn't care less about my California gun rights now that I am going to be living in Michigan. It's a shame that my CZ-75 is going to be turned into scrap, but a gun is a lot cheaper to replace than a lawyer is to hire.

My question is if any state laws in MI could be used to reference the event back in CA as a reason to deny my ability to purchase a firearm once I am a legal resident here? I know that federal law would have disqualified me for either 5 or 10 years if I had been admitted for a 14-day hold after the 72 hours was up, but this is definitely not relevant here. The only Information I'm after and cannot seem to find online is if this type of event and regulation in one state can follow me to another.

For the record, this is an open and shut case and not a debate about a potentially unstable person moving to own a weapon. The officer who responded to the event and detained me, the nurse and doctor who admitted me, and the entire staff of the hospital all suggested I pursue legal action against HER for the false report. The gun was found in a locked case with a loaded clip but no round chambered, hidden under the bed exactly as I had described it to the officer. I might be able to win this myself in a hearing, but that would mean literally having to fly cross-country to be present in person and then hoping I get a judge who gives a fair decision.

Thanks for the help guys.
 
Get a lawyer. You shouldn't look for legal advice on a gun forum. You have no clue who you are taking advice from. I could be a ditch digger, you have no idea.
 
For the record, this is an open and shut case and not a debate....
Click to expand...
Where the justice system is involved, there is no such thing. Worse, "...the law is an ass" as observed Mr Bumble, and one should never leave anything to its tender mercies. (The fact that you are banned for 5 years on accusation alone at this juncture should be a teaching point.)

Hie thee to a lawyer ASAP as recommended above. California or not, you need to get this formally cleaned up in court records. It will haunt you forever if not
 
Welcome to The Firing LIne, OCMusicJunkie.

Go get a lawyer, sooner rather than later. There are some really nice fellers here, but few of us are qualified to answer the questions that you need answered. You need a CA-licensed attorney, who deals in these matters. What you do not need is a bunch of really nice, but ultimately unknown, fellers somewhere out in the internet advising you on these matter.
 
OCMusicJunkie, you need to talk to a lawyer who is familiar with federal law on this issue as well as California and Minnesota state law. This is not just an issue of state law, you may be considered a prohibited person (with no rights to possess a firearm EVER) under federal law in several appellate jurisdictions depending on the facts of the case. It is a really narrow, poorly understood area of law that even a lot of attorneys are unclear on.

The short version is that under 18 USC 922(g) (prohibited persons) any person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution may not possess or purchase firearms. A temporary commitment for observation of the type you describe is universally accepted as not being a commitment under this section. However, some appellate courts (and some lower state courts/state AGs) have taken that position that such a temporary commitment can count as "being adjudicated as a mental defective" depedning on the circumstances of the case.

Personally, I don't think the appellate cases holding this can survive review post-Heller; but you need to talk with a knowledgable attorney about the specifics of your case, particularly if you had any kind of hearing. You might contact the Calguns Foundation and explain your situation to them. They may be able to recommend an attorney who can help you.
 
You might contact the Calguns Foundation [calgunsfoundation.org] and explain your situation to them. They may be able to recommend an attorney who can help you.
Click to expand...
I second this excellent advice. This is about much more than the cost of a CZ75 vs. the cost of a lawyer. Your right to ever possess a firearm again may well be in jeopardy.:eek:

Look to calgunsfoundation or the NRA for assistance, but I would by all means fight this in court.

Good luck!
 
That's it before we get non-expert armchair opinions and the OP may share more than one should - get a lawyer - expenses are expenses.

Closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top