Matter of Goma

California Court of Appeal Jun 4, 1924 No. Crim. No. 1069. Crim. No. 1083.Published

Before: WORKS, J. —

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the statute prohibiting unnaturalized foreign-born persons from possessing certain firearms is constitutional, relying on the precedent set in In re Rameriz.

Issues

Whether the statute forbidding the possession of firearms by unnaturalized foreign-born persons is constitutional.

Disposition. Writ discharged and petitioner remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Petitioners contend that the act is unconstitutional on various grounds, but its constitutionality has recently been upheld by a decision of the supreme court which passes upon every question presented to them.”

“In each of these proceedings the writ is discharged and the petitioner is remanded.”

Each of the petitioners in the above-entitled proceedings is imprisoned upon a charge of having violated the provisions of a statute (Stats. 1923, p. 695) forbidding the possession by unnaturalized foreign-born persons of firearms of a certain character and description. [1] Petitioners contend that the act is unconstitutional on various grounds, but its constitutionality has recently been upheld by a decision of the supreme court which passes upon every question presented to them. See In re Rameriz, 193 Cal. 633 [34 A. L. R. 51,226 P. 914], where the provisions of the statute in question are more particularly set forth.

In each of these proceedings the writ is discharged and the petitioner is remanded.

Finlayson, P. J., and Craig, J., concurred.

*Page 1

Matter of Goma

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief