FEDERAL CRIMES LAW — CALIFORNIA
Federal Weapons Charges in California — 18 U.S.C. §922
Federal firearm charges under 18 U.S.C. §922 cover felon in possession, unlicensed dealing, straw purchases, and illegal firearms trafficking. Federal conviction means no parole and mandatory minimum sentences of 5–30 years for armed career criminals.
Reviewed by Daniel S. Rubin, CA Bar 302093 · Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney
On This Page
Jump to a Section
Quick Reference
Federal Weapons Charges California — At a Glance
- Law / Code
- 18 U.S.C. §922 / 18 U.S.C. §924
- Classification
- Federal Felony
- Maximum Penalty
- Up to 10 years (§922(g)) / 5–30 years mandatory minimums (§924)
- Probation Eligible
- Federal supervised release
- Strike Offense
- Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) — 15 year mandatory minimum
- Related Codes
- 18 U.S.C. §92218 U.S.C. §924PC §29800PC §25400
What Is Federal Weapons Charges California Under California Law?
Legal Framework. Federal weapons cases in California commonly arise under 18 U.S.C. § 922. Section 922(g) prohibits specified “prohibited persons” from knowingly possessing a firearm or ammunition that has traveled in or affected interstate or foreign commerce. The listed categories include people convicted of crimes punishable by more than one year, fugitives, unlawful users of or persons addicted to controlled substances, certain persons with qualifying mental-health adjudications or commitments, people unlawfully present in the United States, persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces, persons who have renounced U.S. citizenship, persons subject to qualifying domestic-violence restraining orders, and persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. For a § 922(g) prosecution, the government must prove the defendant knew of the possession and, under Rehaif v. United States, knew of the status that made possession unlawful. Possession may be actual or constructive; a gun need not be found on a defendant’s person if the government claims the defendant knowingly exercised dominion and control over it.
The Prosecution's Burden. The sentencing statute is 18 U.S.C. § 924. Most ordinary § 922(g) cases are sentenced under § 924(a)(8), which authorizes up to 15 years’ imprisonment. A prior version of the statute provided a 10-year maximum, so the offense date matters. The Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum and a maximum of life for a person convicted under § 922(g) who has three qualifying prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses committed on different occasions. That enhancement is heavily litigated because the statutory definitions, the records that may be consulted, and whether offenses occurred on separate occasions can be outcome-determinative. Other § 922 offenses carry different penalties: for example, a violation of § 922(a)(1)(A), dealing in firearms without a federal license, is generally punishable under § 924(a)(1)(D) by up to five years. Federal charges are prosecuted in United States District Court, not Los Angeles Superior Court, and federal sentences generally do not include parole.
Potential Consequences. Federal prosecutors often pair a firearm-possession count with another alleged offense. A person may face § 922(g) based on a recovered firearm or ammunition, while a separate count alleges drug trafficking, robbery, a firearms-purchase false statement, or use or possession of a gun in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime or crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Section 924(c) is distinct from felon-in-possession: it requires proof of a qualifying predicate offense and can require a consecutive mandatory minimum sentence. Straw-purchase allegations may involve 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), making a false or fictitious written statement material to the lawfulness of a firearm sale, and 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A), knowingly making a false statement or representation concerning information a federally licensed dealer must keep. Unlicensed-dealing cases under § 922(a)(1)(A) turn on whether the accused was engaged in the business, not merely whether they sold firearms on isolated occasions.
05 — Defense Strategies
How Rubin Law Defends Federal Weapons Charges California Charges
Rubin Law, P.C. attacks the elements of 18 U.S.C. §922 / 18 U.S.C. §924 and drives outcomes that avoid conviction where possible.
Challenge the Stop, Search, or Seizure
A recovered firearm is not automatically admissible simply because officers found it. The defense examines the initial LAPD, LASD, ATF, or task-force encounter; any claimed traffic violation, reasonable suspicion, frisk, warrant, consent, and the scope and duration of the detention. A vehicle search may require probable cause or a valid exception to the warrant requirement, while a home search ordinarily requires a warrant or a carefully established exception. In federal court, a successful motion to suppress under the Fourth Amendment can exclude the firearm, ammunition, statements, and other evidence derived from an unlawful search. That may eliminate the government’s ability to prove possession altogether.
U.S. Const. amend. IV
Dispute Knowing Possession and Control
Section 922(g) does not criminalize accidental, fleeting, or unknown proximity to a firearm. Constructive-possession cases are particularly vulnerable where a gun is found in a shared apartment, borrowed vehicle, hotel room, garage, or location accessible to several people. The government must prove the accused knowingly possessed the firearm or had the power and intent to exercise control over it. Defense investigation focuses on ownership records, fingerprints or DNA where meaningful, phone and location evidence, keys, access to the area, witness accounts, and whether another person had equal or superior control. Mere presence near a gun, or association with its owner, is not enough.
17 CCR §1219.3
Require Proof of Knowledge of Prohibited Status
After Rehaif v. United States, the government must prove more than possession and interstate nexus in a § 922(g) case. It must also prove that the defendant knew they belonged to the relevant prohibited category at the time of possession. The precise issue depends on the alleged status. In a felony-status case, prior plea records, sentencing records, custody history, restoration issues, and advisements may matter. In other categories, the government may need to establish knowledge of a qualifying restraining order, immigration status, mental-health disqualification, or other statutory status. A prior conviction alone does not relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the required knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt.
NHTSA SFST
Contest an Armed Career Criminal Enhancement
An ACCA allegation under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) is not established merely by showing three old felony convictions. The government must prove qualifying predicate convictions and that the relevant offenses were committed on occasions different from one another. Whether a prior conviction fits the federal definition of a “violent felony” or “serious drug offense” is a legal question that often requires close analysis of the statute of conviction and permissible court records. California convictions can present categorical-approach issues because state statutes may sweep more broadly than their federal counterparts. Defeating even one alleged predicate, or showing offenses were not separate occasions, can remove the 15-year mandatory minimum.
VC §23152
Attack the Alleged Straw Purchase or Unlicensed Dealing Theory
A straw-purchase case requires proof that a false statement was made knowingly and was material to the lawfulness of the dealer’s sale under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), or that a required dealer record was knowingly falsified under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A). The identity of the true purchaser, the intended recipient, text messages, payment source, ATF Form 4473, and dealer testimony must be closely tested. In an unlicensed-dealing case under § 922(a)(1)(A), isolated sales, liquidation of a personal collection, or hobby activity may not show that someone was engaged in the business as federally defined. The defense challenges the claimed profit motive, repetitiveness, inventory practices, advertising, and intent to devote time and attention to firearms sales.
17 CCR §1219.1
Separate the Firearm From a § 924(c) Predicate Offense
When prosecutors add a § 924(c) count, they must prove a qualifying drug-trafficking crime or crime of violence and the required connection between the firearm and that offense. “Use,” “carry,” possession “in furtherance of,” and mere presence are not interchangeable theories. A gun stored near drugs, cash, or a vehicle may support competing inferences, and the government must show more than coincidental proximity for an in-furtherance theory. The defense scrutinizes the alleged predicate charge, the gun’s location and accessibility, whether it was loaded or operable, ownership evidence, and the timeline. Weakness in either the predicate offense or the required firearm nexus can defeat a count carrying a consecutive sentence.
VC §23103.5
Constitutional Sources: Fourth Amendment — U.S. Constitution
Questions
Frequently Asked — Federal Weapons Charges California
What is the penalty for felon in possession of a firearm in federal court?
For a typical conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), the current penalty provision, 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8), authorizes up to 15 years in federal prison. The applicable maximum can depend on the offense date because Congress amended the penalty structure in 2022. The advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines, criminal-history score, firearm characteristics, relevant conduct, and any related offenses can substantially affect the recommended range. If the government proves the Armed Career Criminal Act under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), the sentence changes dramatically: the statute requires at least 15 years and permits a sentence up to life. Federal prison sentences do not include parole, although good-conduct time and other statutory credits may affect the time served.
Can the government charge me federally if the gun case started with LAPD or LASD?
Yes. A case can begin with LAPD, LASD, California Highway Patrol, or a local task force and later be adopted for federal prosecution by the United States Attorney’s Office. Federal jurisdiction in a § 922(g) case ordinarily rests on proof that the firearm or ammunition traveled in or affected interstate or foreign commerce at some point; the government commonly uses manufacturer and ATF tracing evidence for that element. A local arrest does not guarantee a state filing in Los Angeles Superior Court. The federal process may begin with a criminal complaint and arrest warrant, followed by an initial appearance, detention proceedings, indictment, arraignment, discovery litigation, and trial or resolution in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Does a California felony conviction always make me a prohibited person under federal law?
Not always, but many California felony convictions create federal firearm disability. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the relevant category is a person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. The definition in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20) excludes certain offenses and recognizes that expungement, set-aside, pardon, or restoration of civil rights can affect federal disability when the action does not expressly restrict firearm possession. California post-conviction relief has technical and fact-specific consequences; a reduction, dismissal, or restoration order should not be assumed to remove the federal prohibition. The conviction statute, maximum possible punishment, disposition, and any continuing firearms restriction must be reviewed before deciding whether § 922(g)(1) applies.
What is a straw purchase, and is buying a gun for another person always illegal?
A straw purchase generally means a person buys a firearm from a federally licensed dealer while falsely representing that they are the actual buyer when they are really acquiring it for someone else. Common federal theories are 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), involving a knowingly false material statement related to the lawfulness of the sale, and 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A), involving a knowingly false statement in dealer-required records. Not every lawful gift is a straw purchase. The key issues include who supplied the money, who selected the firearm, whether the buyer intended the gun as a genuine gift, the recipient’s eligibility, and what was stated on ATF Form 4473. Buying for a prohibited person or concealing the true purchaser is especially serious.
What does the armed career criminal enhancement require?
The Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), applies only after a § 922(g) conviction and only if the government proves three prior convictions for a qualifying violent felony or serious drug offense committed on occasions different from one another. It is not enough that the priors are labeled felonies under California law. The court must determine whether each conviction meets the federal statutory definition, often using a categorical legal analysis rather than relitigating the underlying facts. The Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting ACCA make the language of the prior statute, certified records, timing, and the relationship between prior offenses important. If ACCA applies, it creates a 15-year mandatory minimum; if it does not, the ordinary § 922(g) sentencing framework applies instead.
Can I get bail and fight a federal gun charge without staying in custody?
Possibly, but federal release is decided under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142, not California county bail schedules. At the initial appearance or detention hearing, the magistrate judge considers whether conditions can reasonably assure appearance and community safety. The government may seek detention based on the facts of the firearm allegation, alleged drug trafficking, prior convictions, supervision status, threats, access to weapons, and the strength of the evidence. Defense counsel can propose tailored conditions such as third-party custodians, location monitoring, treatment, employment verification, and firearm surrender where appropriate. Early representation also matters because searches, interviews, charging decisions, and guideline allegations may develop quickly. For a case-specific assessment, Rubin Law, P.C. can be reached at (213) 723-2337.
Available 24/7 — Free Consultation
Charged with Federal Weapons Charges California? Call Rubin Law Now.
Daniel S. Rubin defends clients facing federal crimes charges throughout Los Angeles County. Your first consultation is free and confidential.