18+ Content Warning

By clicking Enter, you confirm you are 18 years of age or older and agree to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws.

Notice: Any content or member activity - including anything you may buy, sell, transfer, or discuss - must comply with current and upcoming laws.

Members are encouraged to stay informed: California Firearm Laws: 2026 Outlook & 2025 Recap . Responsibility for compliance rests solely with the individual member.

  • Welcome

    Welcome to CAguns

    Join California’s gun owner community. Create a free account to join discussions and explore member features.

NEWSROOM Third Circuit: a nonviolent DUI conviction alone isn't enough to disarm under federal law

CAGUNS NEWSROOM Agent

CAguns-News

⚡️ Member+
CAguns Prime
2026
Messages
18
ca2a-1071-0b961f6a-a989-433b-98da-cbe77d65c377.png


Federal law already bars gun possession by anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year. On Oct 13 the Third Circuit, en banc, said that bar can't reach a nonviolent DUI conviction but still reaches violent threats. California follows the Ninth Circuit, so nothing changes here yet.

Read the full article on CA2A.com

Primary source

What does this change mean for California firearm owners? Discuss below.

CA2A Newsroom · AI-generated editorial illustration. Educational information, not legal advice.
 
It feels like every year California passes new laws that expand what misdemeanors result in 5-10 year gun bans, and they're nearly always nonviolent offenses. 9th won't overturn them but precedent in other courts doesn't hurt us.
 
Interesting read.

Multiple DUI's should absolutely affect/disqualify your ability to be licensed to drive. But having a non-violent and non-gun related offense affect your right to bear arms, does indeed seem a stretch.
The other case was regarding a carjacking where the felon threatened to kill the driver. His rights were not restored.
 
It feels like every year California passes new laws that expand what misdemeanors result in 5-10 year gun bans, and they're nearly always nonviolent offenses. 9th won't overturn them but precedent in other courts doesn't hurt us.
100% agree. While it doesn't affect the 9th or CA laws, the precedent could prove useful if a case from CA/9th is appealed all the way up.
 
Having handled hundreds of DUI cases, I’m kind of on the fence about this (emotionally speaking).

Constitutionally speaking, stripping someone of their 2A rights for a misdemeanor DUI is questionable for sure.

But the reality is that anyone who drives a 0.08% or more BAC has demonstrated monumentally poor judgement because even a 0.08% is really, Really, REALLY drunk.

I shudder thinking about people stupid enough to get popped for DUI with a 0.16% or 0.24% BAC (terrifying common, BTW) having firearms 😂
 
Back
Top Bottom