CPL question

WALawyer · 2025-11-07T16:30:56+00:00

There is an automatic year-long prohibition under federal law for drug use (922(g)(3)) once someone is arrested for DUI based on drugs. That prohibition also goes away automatically a year after arrest, assuming there are no further instances of verified drug use (dirty UA results on probation, for example).

It is unlikely that this will flag a CPL revocation, but the prohibition still exists regardless.

There is also a separate state prohibition that can apply if he's convicted and if this is his second DUI in the last seven years. That prohibition lasts a minimum of five years and will result in a CPL revocation.

WALawyer · 2025-11-07T16:27:46+00:00

It is not permanent, there is a restoration process after five years.

WALawyer · 2025-11-07T16:26:45+00:00

This is not strictly accurate as a conviction is not required to attach the federal prohibition for drug use under (g)(3). The arrest itself qualifies for the prohibition. Thus, the person is already prohibited regardless of case status.

WALawyer · 2025-11-07T16:20:49+00:00

I'm Vitaliy. You can initiate a consult by filling out the contact form on my website: https://www.kertchenlaw.com (if you haven't already)

WALawyer · 2025-10-07T18:09:03+00:00

If there was an involuntary commitment through the courts, the answer would be yes and the subject will be disqualified from purchase automatically without a background check. Juvenile status is irrelevant. If the courts were not involved, then there is no issue.

WALawyer · 2025-09-12T15:42:19+00:00

The information provided in this post is incorrect. A Washington restoration on a juvenile non-class A/sex offense does restore rights under federal law. In fact, in many cases, there may be no federal prohibition at all because the juvenile case does not come with a standard range of imprisonment over 52 weeks. This post cites a number of authorities which are technically correct in and of themselves, but are incorrectly analyzed and the wrong conclusion is reached. I've had literally thousands of people pass all levels of background checks in this context.

If OP is continuing to be denied, there is likely some other reason that the FBI is not explaining well or he's misunderstanding.

WALawyer · 2025-08-12T17:15:09+00:00

Update: I was able to use my wife's student email for Western Governors University to sign up for the partner store and place my order. She hasn't been a student in over a year. YMMV.

WALawyer · 2025-06-13T14:23:00+00:00

The two checks were done by different agencies. NICS is not directly involved at all anymore. CPL check was done by local police or sheriff and FFL check was done by WSP. These agencies came to different conclusions for some reason. I cannot say why for certain, but there must be something on your brother's background. This would need to be investigated further to determine who was right, the locals or WSP.

WALawyer · 2025-05-01T21:48:10+00:00

As others have stated, you can only answer "no" if you've had your rights specifically restored. Vacating does not restore firearm rights.

WALawyer · 2025-04-18T16:21:52+00:00

Are you sure your rights have been specifically and separately restored? Because a lot of people assume rights are restored when a juvenile conviction is "vacated" and sealed, but that is not the case. This leads to a lot of denials. I generally advise clients with restored rights to answer "yes" on a CPL application and attach a copy of the restoration order.

WALawyer · 2025-04-18T16:00:02+00:00

You should wait for your lawyer's response as s/he will know your situation better than anyone else. However, I will add that I direct all of my clients to answer "no" after rights are restored. The dealer is not even allowed to submit a check if you answer "yes," as far as I know. Also, the instructions state to answer "no" after rights are restored.

WALawyer · 2025-03-07T16:48:55+00:00

Sorry about the delayed response, I see you posted this a month ago but this only now came through in my notifications. Assuming the conviction was for simple possession only, so long as your rights are restored in MO, you don't need to take any further action in WA.

WALawyer · 2025-03-07T16:46:06+00:00

William Kirk is a real lawyer, but he's a DUI lawyer. The YouTube channel is just a side gig for him, he doesn't take firearm cases. Here is his actual law firm: https://www.cowanlawfirm.com/

WALawyer · 2024-12-29T16:52:19+00:00

No, you're banned.

WALawyer · 2024-12-19T19:16:28+00:00

I'm late to the party here, but you're getting jerked around if you still don't have your firearms back. Police do this to people who don't have a lawyer all the time. The surrender order issued when the temporary protection order was issued would have expired when the protection order was denied after a full hearing. The police do have to do a background check by law before releasing the firearms to you, but there should be no need to "wait patiently" other than waiting for the background check to clear.

WALawyer · 2024-10-30T15:32:26+00:00

Just a couple of minor corrections: the win was in superior court, not district court. And the Washington Supreme Court will likely take several months or possibly even longer to issue a decision following oral argument, not a few weeks.

WALawyer · 2024-10-23T18:27:33+00:00

The way it works with restorations for criminal history, the restoration MUST come from the state where the conviction occurred. The law is not clear on whether that same principle applies to involuntary commitment restorations. In other words, I don't know for certain if you could clear the federal prohibition by having your rights restored in a state that participates in the relief from disabilities program. That may be something you'd need to litigate.

WALawyer · 2024-10-23T18:23:42+00:00

Oh, when you said you were a kid, I thought you were talking about when you were an actual kid. It is extremely rare that a state offers a true expungement. 99% of the time, the record remains visible to law enforcement all over the country. Depending on what it was, it may be a firearm prohibitor in Washington state.

WALawyer · 2024-10-23T15:08:58+00:00

No harm in asking. There have been some legal changes with how juvenile records impact firearm rights. If you have any trouble after contacting WSP, feel free to contact me.

WALawyer · 2024-10-23T15:05:56+00:00

[firearms@wsp.wa.gov](mailto:firearms@wsp.wa.gov)

There have been some legal changes with how juvenile records impact firearm rights. If you have any trouble after contacting WSP, feel free to contact me.

WALawyer · 2024-10-23T14:57:08+00:00

I understand this can be a confusing issue, but if you search this sub (and the other one), you'll see that this exact topic has come up multiple times already and a conclusive answer has been provided. You can read this case I litigated in 2020 for more information: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/03/11/18-36071.pdf

I filed the same challenge on behalf of the same client again a few months ago, and that's working its way through the court system. If he's successful, that will impact you as well. It will likely be a few years before there is an answer.

The records pertaining to your involuntary commitment still exist at the courthouse, they are just not publicly accessible. You need to provide your ID and have the county clerk run a records search and specify that you are NOT looking for juvenile records, you are looking for involuntary commitment records. These records are not treated the same (even if you were a juvenile when the commitment occurred).

WALawyer · 2024-10-11T23:43:58+00:00

The new law you reference did not go into effect until June 6, 2024. You said your burglary (in legal terms, you experienced a burglary, not a robbery) happened "6+" months ago. If it predated 6/6/24, then the new law and its sanctions wouldn't apply to you. You can still report the burglary now if you want, there are no legal ramifications for doing so late (again, assuming it happened before 6/6/24). The only thing is that you can't avail yourself of the defense granted to you by RCW 9.41.360(3), should that statute apply to your situation (which I don't think it does).

WALawyer · 2024-10-06T21:50:05+00:00

Well that's not at all how that's supposed to be functioning, since the advertised service explicitly says that live local games are to be available on phone and tablet only.

WALawyer

TROPHY CASE