• Home
• Theft
• Grand Theft of a Firearm

Charged with Grand Theft of a Firearm in California?

Taking Any Firearm — Regardless of Value — Is Always a Felony with State Prison Exposure, a Serious Felony Strike, and Permanent Loss of Firearm Rights.

California criminal defense attorney David Chesley has successfully defended grand theft of a firearm charges under Penal Code § 487(d)(2) in courts across every county in California — from Los Angeles to San Francisco, San Diego to Sacramento, and everywhere in between. Unlike ordinary theft, theft of a firearm is always charged as a felony and qualifies as a serious felony strike under California's Three Strikes law. It also carries permanent firearm prohibition and potential federal exposure. The right defense, started early, can challenge intent, consent, and other elements to achieve dismissal, reduction, or probation. Build your defense now.

IMMEDIATE STEPS IF CHARGED OR INVESTIGATED:

• Do not speak with law enforcement or prosecutors without counsel — statements about knowledge, access, or intent can be used to establish the elements the prosecution needs to prove, including the intent to permanently deprive and your awareness of the firearm's status
• Do not attempt to return, transfer, or dispose of any firearm — this can be interpreted as consciousness of guilt and used as evidence against you
• Preserve all evidence of authorization, consent, temporary taking, or lack of knowledge — communications, relationship history, receipts, and any other documentation relevant to the circumstances of the alleged taking
• Contact experienced counsel immediately — these cases often involve ATF and federal scrutiny, move quickly, and the window to influence charging decisions before the most serious strike and federal consequences are locked in is narrow

Call now for a free, confidential consultation — available 24/7. 📞 (800) 755-5174

THE STAKES ARE REAL

Under Penal Code § 487(d)(2), theft of any firearm is automatically grand theft and a felony — no $950 value threshold applies. A $50 used handgun and a $5,000 collector's rifle are treated identically under this statute. But the value-independent felony designation is not the most serious consequence of this charge. A conviction is also a serious felony under PC § 1192.7 — counting as a strike under California's Three Strikes law. That strike designation follows the defendant permanently, doubles the sentence on any future felony conviction, and means that a second strike on any new felony triggers mandatory 25-to-life. The combination of the automatic felony, the strike designation, and the permanent firearm prohibition makes grand theft of a firearm one of the most consequential theft charges in California criminal law — with consequences that extend far beyond the current case into every future encounter with the criminal justice system.

A conviction can mean:

• State prison: 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years
• Fines: Up to $10,000 plus full restitution
• Strike consequences: One strike doubles future sentences on any new felony; two strikes can mean 25-to-life on a new felony — the strike follows you permanently
• Permanent firearm prohibition under both California and federal law upon any felony conviction
• Potential federal charges under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 and 924 with significantly harsher sentencing guidelines than California state court
• Impacts on employment, housing, professional licenses, and immigration — theft offenses are crimes of moral turpitude; felony designation amplifies deportation and removal risk for non-U.S. citizens

Grand Theft of a Firearm at a Glance:

Free 24/7 consultation. 📞 (800) 755-5174

WHAT IS GRAND THEFT OF A FIREARM UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW?

PC § 487(d)(2) — The Automatic Felony Strike

Penal Code § 487(d)(2) makes the unlawful taking of any firearm grand theft regardless of its monetary value. Unlike every other California theft statute, there is no value threshold, no wobbler status, and no path to misdemeanor treatment. Any theft of any firearm is automatically grand theft, automatically a felony, and automatically a serious felony strike under PC § 1192.7.

What the Prosecution Must Prove:

For a PC § 487(d)(2) conviction, the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The defendant took a firearm belonging to another person
2. Without the owner's consent — against the owner's will or without authorization
3. With the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of the firearm at the time of the taking
4. The item taken was a firearm as defined under California law

Key Defense Targets:

Lack of intent to permanently deprive The most important element and the most frequently vulnerable to challenge. Temporary borrowing, taking a firearm for safekeeping during a dispute, or any taking with a genuine plan to return the firearm defeats the grand theft charge — because the prosecution must prove permanent deprivation intent beyond a reasonable doubt, not merely that the defendant took the firearm.

Consent or authorization Express or implied permission from the owner is a complete defense. Prior patterns of handling or borrowing the firearm, the nature of the parties' relationship, and any communications suggesting the owner was aware of or approved the defendant's access are all developed and presented in every case where consent is a viable defense.

Knowledge and identification — receiving stolen property cases In cases where the defendant did not take the firearm themselves but was found in possession of it, the charge shifts to receiving stolen property under PC § 496 — and the knowledge element becomes the primary defense target. A defendant who received or possessed a firearm without knowing it was stolen did not commit receiving stolen property. This defense is examined in detail in a dedicated section below.

Federal risk assessment Federal statutes create independent criminal liability for firearm theft with significantly harsher penalties than California state court. Managing federal exposure from day one is a critical component of every grand theft of a firearm defense.

Common scenarios include family disputes where a firearm was temporarily removed, taking a firearm during a relationship breakdown, being found in possession of a firearm reported stolen by its owner, ownership disputes where the defendant believed the firearm was legitimately theirs, and receiving a firearm without knowledge of its stolen status.

RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY INVOLVING A FIREARM — THE KNOWLEDGE ELEMENT DEFENSE

Not every PC § 487(d)(2) or firearm-related theft prosecution involves the original taking of the firearm. Many defendants charged in connection with a stolen firearm did not steal it themselves — they received it, purchased it, found it, or were simply in possession of it when law enforcement made contact. In these cases, the charge is typically receiving stolen property under PC § 496 — which is also a felony when the property is a firearm — rather than grand theft.

The critical element that distinguishes a PC § 496 conviction from a complete defense is knowledge: the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the firearm was stolen at the time they received or possessed it. A defendant who received or purchased a firearm through a transaction that appeared legitimate, at a fair price, with no indication the firearm was stolen, did not commit receiving stolen property — regardless of what the firearm's actual history was. Not knowing a firearm was stolen is a complete defense to receiving stolen property, and it must be proven through the prosecution's own burden rather than disproven by the defendant.

The knowledge element is proven by the prosecution entirely through circumstantial evidence — and each piece of that circumstantial evidence is subject to challenge:

How the defendant came to possess the firearm: A firearm received through a legitimate private sale, purchased at a gun show, or acquired through any other facially lawful transaction supports a defense of good faith rather than knowledge of stolen status. The specific circumstances of the acquisition are examined and presented in every receiving stolen property case.

The price paid: A firearm purchased at an unusually low price may suggest the buyer knew something was wrong — but many legitimate firearms are sold at below-market prices for entirely innocent reasons, and the prosecution's below-market-price inference is challenged through evidence of the market price range for that specific firearm type and condition.

What the defendant was told about the firearm: Representations made by the seller — about the firearm's origin, its owner history, and the reason for the sale — are relevant to whether the defendant had reason to believe the firearm was stolen. A defendant who was told the firearm belonged to a family estate, was purchased new by the seller, or had any other innocent explanation acted in good faith even if those representations were false.

Whether the defendant took any steps to verify the firearm's status: In some circumstances, a defendant who made reasonable efforts to verify a firearm's legitimacy before acquiring it demonstrates good faith that defeats the knowledge inference.

The knowledge element in receiving stolen firearm cases is the most frequently successful defense in possession-based firearm theft prosecutions — and it is examined and developed from the very first consultation in every case where the defendant's connection to the firearm is possession rather than the original taking.

FEDERAL EXPOSURE — WHEN GRAND THEFT OF A FIREARM GOES BEYOND CALIFORNIA STATE COURT

Federal law creates independent criminal liability for firearm theft that can run parallel to or replace California state prosecution — and federal prosecution in firearm theft cases is more serious in almost every respect than state prosecution. Understanding the federal exposure, what triggers it, and how it is managed is one of the most important components of every grand theft of a firearm defense.

The Specific Federal Statutes:

• 18 U.S.C. § 922(i): Prohibits transporting stolen firearms in interstate commerce — applies when a stolen firearm crosses state lines at any point
• 18 U.S.C. § 922(u): Prohibits stealing firearms from licensed dealers — one of the most aggressively prosecuted federal firearm theft provisions; any theft from an FFL (Federal Firearms Licensee) dealer triggers this statute
• 18 U.S.C. § 924(l) and (m): Address theft of firearms and conspiracy to steal firearms from licensed dealers; carry significant mandatory penalties

The Specific Scenarios That Trigger Federal Prosecution:

Multiple stolen firearms: Cases involving multiple firearms — particularly when the number suggests organized distribution rather than a single incident — are more likely to attract federal attention and federal prosecution.

Licensed dealer victims: A theft from any federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) almost automatically triggers federal investigation and frequently results in federal rather than state prosecution. The ATF treats FFL theft as a priority enforcement matter regardless of the number of firearms involved.

Interstate transportation: A stolen firearm that crossed state lines — even if the defendant was not personally involved in the interstate transportation — creates federal jurisdiction that can result in prosecution regardless of the state where the defendant was apprehended.

ATF involvement in the investigation: When the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives opens an investigation — which occurs frequently in multiple-firearm theft cases and all FFL theft cases — federal prosecution becomes a realistic possibility that must be assessed and managed from the very first day of representation.

Why Federal Prosecution Is More Serious Than State Prosecution:

Federal sentencing guidelines for firearm theft offenses produce significantly longer sentences than California state court in most circumstances. Federal mandatory minimum provisions in certain firearm theft cases eliminate the judicial discretion that California state court sentencing provides. Federal probation and supervision are more intensive. And the federal system has no equivalent to California's wobbler statute — there is no path to misdemeanor treatment in federal court for firearm theft offenses.

The decision of whether to pursue federal rather than state prosecution is made by the U.S. Attorney's Office independently of the California state prosecution — and in many cases both prosecutions can proceed simultaneously or sequentially. The defense strategy in every grand theft of a firearm case must account for both the state and federal tracks from the first day of representation — because decisions made in the state case, including statements, pleas, and factual concessions, can directly affect the federal case. David Chesley assesses federal exposure in every grand theft of a firearm case from the very first consultation and builds the defense strategy to manage both tracks simultaneously.

HOW DAVID CHESLEY DEFENDS GRAND THEFT OF A FIREARM CASES

Grand theft of a firearm defense requires challenging the intent element, the consent question, and the specific circumstances of the alleged taking — while assessing and managing federal prosecution exposure, addressing the strike consequences, and protecting the defendant's permanent firearm rights from a conviction that cannot be reduced to a misdemeanor. David Chesley handles these cases in criminal courts across every major region of California — Southern California, Northern California, and Central California — and is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No hand-offs. No junior associates. The attorney you hire is the attorney fighting for you.

Core defense strategies pursued immediately:

Intent to permanently deprive — challenging the most vulnerable element

The specific circumstances of the taking — the defendant's stated or demonstrated purpose, what was done with the firearm after the taking, communications before and after the incident, and the relationship between the defendant and the owner — are all examined to determine whether the prosecution can actually establish permanent deprivation intent beyond a reasonable doubt. A taking that was genuinely temporary, communicated to the owner, or that occurred in circumstances where return was contemplated defeats the grand theft element regardless of what the owner subsequently alleged.

Consent and authorization — express and implied

The full history of the defendant's relationship with the owner and with the firearm is examined — prior patterns of handling or borrowing, any express or implied permission, and any communications suggesting the owner was aware of or approved the defendant's access. Where consent existed or was reasonably believed to exist, the taking was not against the owner's will and the grand theft charge fails.

Knowledge element in receiving stolen property cases

In possession-based cases, the specific circumstances of how the defendant came to possess the firearm — the price paid, what they were told, the apparent legitimacy of the transaction, and any steps taken to verify the firearm's status — are examined and presented to challenge the prosecution's knowledge inference.

Federal exposure assessment and management

The specific facts — number of firearms, whether any licensed dealer was a victim, whether interstate transportation occurred, whether ATF is involved — are analyzed immediately to assess federal prosecution risk. The defense strategy accounts for both state and federal tracks from day one.

Strike consequences — fighting the underlying charge to protect the future

Because grand theft of a firearm is always a felony and always a strike, avoiding conviction is more important in this case than in virtually any other theft matter. Every available avenue to defeat or reduce the charge is pursued aggressively — because the strike designation, once attached, follows the defendant permanently and affects every future case.

Concurrent charges addressed as a unified strategy

Where grand theft of a firearm is charged alongside burglary, robbery, felon in possession, or federal charges, each is addressed individually as part of a coordinated defense strategy — because combined sentencing exposure can far exceed any single charge alone.

Free, confidential case review — available 24/7, no obligation. 📞 (800) 755-5174 | 📧 calllog@chesleylawyers.com

YOU HAVE RIGHTS. USE THEM.

The prosecution must prove every element of PC § 487(d)(2) beyond a reasonable doubt — including the intent to permanently deprive and the absence of consent. An automatic felony designation does not mean an automatic conviction. An automatic strike designation does not mean the strike cannot be avoided by defeating the underlying charge. Common resolutions:

• Grand theft of a firearm charge dismissed — intent to permanently deprive not proven; consent established; prosecution's evidence insufficient
• Charge reduced to lesser offense — temporary taking without permanent deprivation intent; receiving stolen property without knowledge the firearm was stolen
• Receiving stolen property knowledge element defeated — defendant did not know the firearm was stolen; PC § 496 charge dismissed
• Strike avoided — underlying grand theft charge defeated; strike designation eliminated with it
• Concurrent charges defeated — burglary, robbery, or other concurrent charges challenged; overall sentencing exposure reduced
• Federal prosecution avoided — case resolved in state court before federal prosecution decision; federal sentencing guidelines exposure avoided
• Probation achieved — state prison avoided; formal felony probation rather than incarceration
• Immigration-safe resolution — charge resolved minimizing moral turpitude consequences for non-U.S. citizens
• Professional license consequences minimized — resolution structured to reduce mandatory reporting obligations

WHY CLIENTS CHOOSE DAVID CHESLEY

Direct, personal attention — statewide, 24/7

David Chesley personally handles grand theft of a firearm cases in criminal courts across all of California — Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange County, San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno, San Jose, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and every other jurisdiction statewide. Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week — because these cases move fast, federal prosecution decisions are made early, and the window to influence charging and resolution is narrow.

Straight talk, always

These cases range from situations where intent and consent elements are strong defenses that can defeat the charge entirely, to cases where the evidence is more difficult and the focus shifts to avoiding state prison, protecting against the strike, managing federal exposure, and preserving immigration and professional license status. You deserve honest counsel about which situation you are actually in and what the most effective strategy looks like. No false promises. No sugarcoating.

Federal exposure assessment from day one

Many attorneys who handle California theft cases do not assess federal prosecution exposure in firearm theft matters. David Chesley evaluates federal exposure from the first consultation in every grand theft of a firearm case — because the decision of whether the case stays in California state court or moves to federal court is made early, and the defense strategy must account for both possibilities from the beginning.

California-wide expertise in firearm theft and weapons offenses

Deep knowledge of PC § 487(d)(2) grand theft of a firearm, PC § 496 receiving stolen property, PC § 29800 felon in possession, PC § 459 burglary as it intersects with firearm theft, the Three Strikes law and its application to serious felony designations, federal firearms statutes including 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 and 924, and the permanent firearm prohibition, immigration, and professional license consequences of firearm-related felonies — across every region of California, Southern, Northern, and Central.

Flexible payment plans

The Law Offices of David Chesley offer flexible payment plans because cost should never be the reason someone facing a grand theft of a firearm charge goes without experienced legal representation.

Representative Results:

• Grand theft of a firearm charge dismissed — evidence established defendant took firearm temporarily during domestic dispute with intent to return; permanent deprivation intent not proven beyond a reasonable doubt; strike avoided
• Charge reduced — prosecution agreed defendant did not commit the original theft and knowledge element of PC § 496 as to stolen status was genuinely in dispute; felony firearms charge resolved on favorable terms
• Receiving stolen property knowledge element defeated — defendant purchased firearm through legitimate channels without knowledge of stolen status; PC § 496 charge dismissed
• Concurrent burglary charge defeated — entry into premises established as lawful rather than unlawful; PC § 459 charge dismissed; remaining firearm charge resolved on significantly more favorable terms
• Federal prosecution avoided — case resolved in California state court before federal prosecution decision was made; federal sentencing guidelines exposure avoided
• State prison avoided through negotiation — defendant received formal felony probation; specific circumstances of taking and defendant's history presented effectively; incarceration avoided
• Strike consequences avoided — underlying grand theft charge defeated through intent challenge; serious felony designation eliminated; defendant's future sentencing exposure protected
• Immigration-safe resolution — non-U.S. citizen defendant's charge resolved in manner minimizing moral turpitude consequences; deportation exposure addressed

Client Feedback:

"I took my brother's gun during an argument and planned to return it the next day. He called the police. David showed I never intended to keep it permanently and the grand theft charge was dismissed. I had no idea the intent element mattered that much — or that a strike was on the line." — Anonymous former client

"Found a gun, kept it thinking it was abandoned. Turned out it was stolen. David showed I had no idea it was stolen when I picked it up and the receiving stolen property charge was dropped." — Anonymous former client

"Facing both California charges and possible federal charges. David assessed the federal exposure immediately and built the defense around keeping it in state court. It worked." — Anonymous former client

"Non-citizen. David explained the immigration consequences of a felony firearms conviction immediately and made protecting my status the center of the defense strategy. Resolved safely." — Anonymous former client

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Is grand theft of a firearm always a felony — regardless of what the gun is worth?

Yes — and this is the most important distinction between PC § 487(d)(2) and every other California theft statute. Under ordinary theft law, the $950 threshold determines whether a theft is a misdemeanor or felony. Grand theft of a firearm eliminates that threshold entirely — any theft of any firearm is automatically grand theft and automatically a felony, regardless of whether the firearm is worth $50 or $50,000. The Legislature's rationale is public safety: stolen firearms enter the criminal market and create dangers independent of their monetary value. That public safety rationale is also why prosecutors treat firearm theft more aggressively than theft of equivalent monetary value — and why the defense must account for that prosecutorial posture from the first day.

Does grand theft of a firearm count as a strike — and what does that mean for my future?

Yes — grand theft of a firearm is a serious felony under Penal Code § 1192.7, which means it counts as a strike under California's Three Strikes law. The practical consequences of a strike conviction extend far beyond the current sentence and affect every future encounter with the criminal justice system for the rest of the defendant's life. A first strike doubles the sentence on any future felony conviction — meaning a crime that would ordinarily carry 2 years carries 4 years after a prior strike. A second strike on any new serious or violent felony triggers mandatory 25-to-life. And the strike designation cannot be eliminated through expungement, probation completion, or any other ordinary post-conviction procedure. It follows the defendant permanently. This is precisely why fighting the grand theft of a firearm charge aggressively — rather than accepting a plea — is worth pursuing in every case: because avoiding the conviction avoids the strike, and avoiding the strike protects the defendant's future sentencing exposure for life.

Is grand theft of a firearm a wobbler — can it ever be reduced to a misdemeanor?

No — and this is one of the most critical distinctions between this charge and virtually every other California theft offense. Grand theft of a firearm is not a wobbler. It cannot be charged as a misdemeanor, cannot be reduced through a PC § 17(b) motion, and carries no path to misdemeanor treatment regardless of the defendant's history, the value of the firearm, or any other mitigating factor. The felony is mandatory. The strike designation is mandatory. And the permanent firearm prohibition upon conviction is mandatory. This makes the defense of the underlying charge — challenging intent, establishing consent, or defeating the prosecution's evidence of the taking itself — more important in a grand theft of a firearm case than in virtually any other theft matter, because there is no fallback position if the charge is not successfully contested.

What is the intent to permanently deprive — and how can it be challenged?

Grand theft requires specific intent — the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the firearm at the time of the taking. This is not the same as taking the firearm. A defendant who took a firearm intending to return it — who communicated that intent, who had a plan for return, or who took the firearm temporarily during a dispute or for safekeeping — did not act with the intent to permanently deprive and did not commit grand theft. The prosecution must prove this intent beyond a reasonable doubt through the specific circumstances of the taking — and where those circumstances are consistent with temporary rather than permanent taking, the intent element is contested aggressively. The difference between a temporary taking and a permanent one is the difference between a grand theft of a firearm conviction with a permanent strike and a complete dismissal.

What if I didn't steal the firearm but was found in possession of it?

A defendant who did not commit the original theft but was found in possession of a stolen firearm faces charges under PC § 496 receiving stolen property — also a felony when the property is a firearm. The critical element is knowledge: the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the firearm was stolen at the time they received or possessed it. The knowledge element is proven entirely through circumstantial evidence — how the defendant came to possess the firearm, what they paid for it, what they were told, and whether the transaction appeared legitimate. A defendant who received a firearm through a facially legitimate transaction, at a reasonable price, with no indication of stolen status, did not commit receiving stolen property regardless of what the firearm's actual history was. Not knowing the firearm was stolen is a complete defense — and the prosecution bears the burden of proving knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt, not the defendant's burden to prove ignorance.

Can I face federal charges as well as California state charges?

Yes — and federal prosecution is a specific and serious risk that must be assessed from the first day of representation. Federal law under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 and 924 creates independent criminal liability for firearm theft — including specific provisions for stealing from licensed dealers and transporting stolen firearms across state lines. Federal penalties frequently exceed California state penalties, and the federal sentencing guidelines produce significantly longer sentences in many circumstances. Cases involving multiple stolen firearms, licensed dealer victims, or interstate transportation are specifically at risk of federal prosecution. The U.S. Attorney's Office makes the federal prosecution decision independently of the state prosecution — and the defense strategy must account for both tracks from the beginning.

What happens to my firearm rights after a conviction?

They are permanently lost — under both California and federal law. A felony conviction for grand theft of a firearm results in a lifetime prohibition on purchasing, possessing, owning, or controlling any firearm. This prohibition applies to every firearm, not just the type involved in the offense. It cannot be lifted through probation completion or expungement in most circumstances. For defendants whose employment, professional licenses, or personal circumstances depend on firearm access — security professionals, law enforcement officers, hunters, collectors — this permanent prohibition is often the most devastating consequence of the conviction, going far beyond the prison sentence itself.

Will a conviction affect my immigration status?

Seriously and potentially permanently. Theft offenses are crimes of moral turpitude under federal immigration law — and a felony grand theft of a firearm conviction can constitute an aggravated felony triggering mandatory deportation, detention, removal, and permanent bars to naturalization for non-U.S. citizens. For any non-U.S. citizen facing this charge, immigration consequences must be analyzed from the very first consultation.

Are payment plans available?

Yes. The Law Offices of David Chesley offers flexible payment plans because cost should never be the reason someone facing a grand theft of a firearm charge goes without experienced legal representation. Call to discuss options during your free consultation.

More questions? We are available 24/7 — free consultation, no obligation, no pressure. 📞 (800) 755-5174

FREE CONSULTATION — CALL NOW — 24/7

Grand theft of a firearm cases involve intense scrutiny and lifelong consequences — and they move faster than almost any other theft matter because the firearm element activates both state and federal law enforcement simultaneously. Every day without experienced defense counsel is a day the prosecution is building its case on both tracks without a defense attorney assessing the specific exposure on each and presenting the specific facts that distinguish the defendant's conduct from the most serious charging theories available. Every day the federal prosecution decision goes unassessed is a day the most serious consequence in firearm theft cases — federal prosecution with significantly harsher sentencing guidelines — develops without the defense strategy that might keep the case in California state court and away from federal mandatory minimum exposure. Every day the intent and consent elements go unchallenged is a day the prosecution's narrative about what the defendant intended solidifies into the charging theory that determines the entire trajectory of the case — including whether a permanent strike is attached to the defendant's record for life.

Don't assume the automatic felony means a conviction is inevitable. Don't assume the strike cannot be avoided by defeating the underlying charge. And don't wait. If you have been arrested for or charged with grand theft of a firearm, receiving a stolen firearm, or any related offense — or if you are under investigation — call now.

The Law Offices of David Chesley offer a free, confidential consultation available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No judgment. No pressure. Clear guidance on both the state and federal risks in your specific case.

Flexible payment plans available — because cost should never be the reason someone facing a grand theft of a firearm charge goes without the experienced defense this charge demands.

David Chesley handles grand theft of a firearm cases in criminal courts across all of California — Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Diego County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, Ventura County, Santa Barbara County, Kern County, Fresno County, Sacramento County, Alameda County, Santa Clara County, San Francisco County, Contra Costa County, San Joaquin County, Stanislaus County, Monterey County, and every other jurisdiction statewide.

Se habla español.

📞 (800) 755-5174 📧 calllog@chesleylawyers.com 🌐 www.chesleylawyers.com

"Grand theft of a firearm is prosecuted more aggressively than ordinary theft because of the public safety concerns and permanent consequences that follow — a mandatory felony, an automatic strike, permanent firearm prohibition, and federal exposure that most theft cases never carry. The prosecution must still prove specific intent to permanently deprive beyond a reasonable doubt. My commitment is challenging every element aggressively while protecting you from the strike, the federal exposure, and the lifelong firearm ban — because those consequences, once locked in, cannot be undone." — David Chesley, California Criminal Defense Attorney