Harbert

Harbert v. Deukmejian

Good Law
117 Cal. App. 3d 779·173 Cal. Rptr. 89·1981 Cal. App. LEXIS 1597
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 8, 1981Civ. 58270California705 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kingsley, J.

The Attorney General appeals from a judgment declaring: “In view of the Supremacy .Clause, article VI, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, Penal Code § 12021 is interpreted not to apply to any person who is the recipient of a full and unconditional presidential pardon.” We affirm the judgment.

In March of 1945, plaintiff, then 18 years old, was convicted in a federal court of a violation of section 338a of 18 United States Code (mailing threatening letters); he was granted probation. On January 18, 1961, having performed the conditions of probation, he was granted a full and unconditional pardon by the President of the United States. He has secured employment as a security-guard—a position requiring him to carry a gun. Acting on an opinion of the Attorney General of California, permission to purchase such a gun was refused. The present action for declaratory relief followed.

Section 12021 of the Penal Code reads as follows: “(a) Any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of the United States, of the State of California, or any other state, government, or country, or who is addicted to the use of any narcotic drug, who owns or who has in his…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.