Federal judge rips California for denying gun purchases to ex-felons

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A federal judge ruled Wednesday that California violated the Second Amendment rights of three men when it denied them the right to own or purchase firearms even though their prior felony convictions were vacated and their rights restored.

Chad Linton, Paul McKinley Stewart, and Kendall Jones were convicted of nonviolent felonies in separate states decades ago. Each of the plaintiffs had their convictions vacated, set aside or dismissed, and their rights to possess firearms restored by the jurisdiction in which they were convicted.

Linton has legally acquired firearms in California on prior occasions, and Jones was a career law enforcement officer in California with special training and certification as a firearms instructor. Even so, they claim California has acted to permanently deny Linton, Stewart, and Jones the right to possess or own firearms solely on the basis of their prior criminal convictions.

This is because California — and the state does not dispute this — does not consider the right to own a firearm restored in California, even if the conviction has been vacated and the firearm rights restored by the out-of-state jurisdiction, unless there's been a pardon by the governor or the felony has been reduced to a misdemeanor.

The men moved for summary judgment on the grounds that California has violated the Second Amendment, the full faith and credit clause and the right to travel protected by Article IV and the 14 Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They also sought a declaration that California's policy of refusing to honor the vacating of their out-of-state convictions is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge James Donato granted the request, finding California's policy is unconstitutional. He noted Second Amendment precedent set under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, a 2022 case that expanded the rights of Americans to bear arms. 

In Bruen, the Supreme Court ruled that New York’s law requiring a license to carry a concealed weapon in public places was unconstitutional. The high court found that in creating and enforcing new gun regulations, "the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate that the regulation ‘is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,’” Donato wrote, citing Bruen.

To prove its policy complies with Bruen, California must it is consistent with a historical tradition of gun regulation. Donato found the state failed when it argued only “law abiding, responsible citizens” have Second Amendment rights.

“As California would have it, a single felony conviction permanently disqualifies an individual from being a ‘law-abiding, responsible citizen’ within the ambit of the Second Amendment,” Donato wrote, finding the interpretation flawed and noting other courts have rejected California’s categorical exclusion argument.

Donato also pointed to the fact that Jones had worked in California for 29 years as a correctional officer and 19 years as a firearms instructor.

“It is safe to say that California entrusted Jones with the authority of a sworn peace officer, and with the special role of training other officers in the use of force, precisely because it deemed him to be a ‘law-abiding, responsible citizen,’” Donato wrote. “The undisputed facts indicate that Linton and Stewart are also fairly described as law-abiding citizens. Linton is a veteran of the United States Navy with a clean criminal record for the past 37 years. Stewart has had a clean criminal record for the past 48 years. California simply turned a blind eye to these circumstances, and did not account for them in any meaningful way in its discussion of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The other serious flaw in California’s argument was the absence of any case law supporting its position, Donato wrote.

“California presented nothing in the way of historical evidence in support of the conduct challenged here. It did not identify even one ‘representative analogue’ that could be said to come close to speaking to firearms regulations for individuals in circumstances akin to plaintiffs’,” Donato wrote. “California had every opportunity to present any historical evidence it believed would carry its burden. It chose not to do so.”

Rather than imposing a remedy, Donato ordered the parties to meet and come up with an injunction or similar remedy consistent with Donato’s order. 

The plaintiffs' attorney George Lee of Seiler-Epstein LLP praised Donato's ruling and said he anticipates filing similar lawsuits "until the California DOJ finally agrees to amend its policies to honor the judgments of other states."

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit