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 Firearm-Rights Consequences That Need Individual Review.

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 can affect firearm possession and may raise a distinct federal question if federal elements are present. Counsel can examine intent, consent, identification, the charged statute and any separate federal allegation. 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 whether the alleged taking meets the theft-intent element; the firearm and ownership facts also matter
• 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 — preserve the firearm history, communications and charging papers; a specific federal theory requires federal jurisdictional and mental-state elements

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. A pleaded and proved prior strike can affect a later sentence under the separate second-strike rule. A qualifying third-strike case with two prior strikes may carry 25 years to life; the later charge, record and available relief matter. The felony sentence, serious-felony designation and possible firearm-rights restrictions each require review of the actual judgment, collateral consequences and any later case.

A conviction can mean:

• State prison: 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years
• Fines: Up to $10,000 plus full restitution
• Strike consequences: A prior strike may affect a later felony sentence under the separate second-strike rule; a third-strike 25-years-to-life term requires two prior strikes and a qualifying new felony under current law
• Firearm-rights restrictions under California and federal law can follow a felony conviction; their scope and any relief require individual review
• Potential federal charge only if the specific elements of an applicable provision of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 or 924 are met
• Impacts on employment, housing, professional licenses, and immigration — immigration consequences depend on the conviction elements, sentence and person’s status; qualified immigration review is needed

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. Penal Code § 490.2(c) excludes firearm theft from its low-value petty-theft rule; § 489(a) prescribes a state-prison term for a § 487(d)(2) conviction. A different charge or disposition requires its own analysis. 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 deprive the owner of the firearm permanently or for so extended a period that the owner loses a major portion of its value or enjoyment 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. A stated plan to return a firearm is relevant, but theft intent can include deprivation long enough to remove a major part of its value or enjoyment. The actual purpose, duration and owner consent must be assessed; a plan to return is not automatically a defense.

Consent or authorization Actual consent or an appropriate good-faith belief can be important to the taking element; the scope of any permission and the full circumstances matter. 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 can create a separate offense when their particular elements are met; state and federal penalties cannot be ranked categorically. Federal exposure should be assessed when the facts implicate a specific federal statute, such as a covered dealer-inventory or interstate-commerce theory.

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 — whose classification depends on section 496, value, qualifying priors and the charged facts — 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. An apparently legitimate transaction, fair price and seller statements can bear on knowledge, but they do not conclusively resolve what the person knew about stolen status. The prosecution must prove the charged mental state beyond a reasonable doubt. 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.

Knowledge may be shown by statements or circumstantial evidence; the prosecution must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt — 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 may support an inference of good faith but must be considered with all other evidence. 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 may have acted in good faith, depending on other known facts.

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 may have evidence supporting good faith, without automatically defeating other evidence of knowledge.

In a possession-based case, separate the alleged original taking from any receiving or possession charge. Ask when the item was acquired, what was said about its origin, what records identify the seller, and what facts the person actually knew then. A low price, missing paperwork, changed serial number or inconsistent account may be evidence, but no single item is conclusive. Section 496 asks about knowledge of stolen status; a firearm-possession count may have different elements. Counsel should review each charged count separately.

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

Federal law can create a separate charge when a particular statute’s elements are met. State and federal authorities make independent charging decisions; no federal case follows automatically from a California theft charge. 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 — requires the person to transport or ship a stolen firearm in interstate or foreign commerce knowing or having reasonable cause to believe it was stolen
• 18 U.S.C. § 922(u): Prohibits stealing firearms from licensed dealers — one of the most aggressively prosecuted federal firearm theft provisions; the § 922(u) theory concerns a firearm in a covered licensee’s business inventory that has moved in interstate or foreign commerce
• 18 U.S.C. § 924(l) and (m): address distinct firearm-theft provisions, including an interstate-nexus theory under (l) and a licensed-source theory under (m); check elements and authorized sentence before describing a penalty

Facts That May Call for a Separate Federal-Law Review:

Multiple stolen firearms: The number of firearms and any evidence of distribution may matter to a federal inquiry, but do not alone establish a federal offense.

Licensed dealer victims: A covered theft from licensed inventory can support a federal inquiry; whether federal investigators or prosecutors become involved cannot be assumed. The ATF treats FFL theft as a priority enforcement matter regardless of the number of firearms involved.

Interstate transportation: An interstate fact alone does not prove that a particular person committed § 922(i); the statute also requires the person’s covered conduct and knowledge or reasonable cause concerning stolen status.

ATF involvement in the investigation: If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives actually opens an investigation, counsel should identify any federal allegation and its elements alongside the state charge.

How to Compare the Actual State and Federal Allegations:

A federal sentence depends on the charged statute, statutory range, Guidelines calculation and judge’s decisions. The cited theft provisions do not establish a universal mandatory minimum or longer sentence than the state case. Supervision terms depend on the actual federal judgment. A federal offense must be classified under its own statute — that statute’s elements and authorized punishment control its classification.

Any federal charging decision is made under the federal statutes and evidence, independently of the California state prosecution — and in many cases both prosecutions can proceed simultaneously or sequentially. Where facts support a separate federal allegation, counsel should assess it alongside the state charge — 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 can evaluate a separate federal allegation when supported by the actual facts.

At the first case review, distinguish three questions that the general firearm-theft label can blur. Did the person allegedly take the gun from someone else, later acquire an already-stolen gun, or merely possess a gun while ownership is disputed? The complaint may allege § 487(d)(2), § 496, a possession offense, or more than one theory; each has different elements. For an original taking, identify the owner, location, access permission, expected return and actual duration. For a receiving allegation, trace the transfer and the facts known at that time, including messages, receipts and seller statements. For a possession count, examine the separate statutory prohibition and the person’s status. Preserving this chronology allows counsel to challenge the right element rather than treating every firearm contact as theft. A client should bring the complaint, police or property receipt, court notice and any available communications, without contacting a protected person or handling a firearm in violation of an order.

Federal review also starts with an exact statute, not a general fear of ATF involvement. Section 922(i) concerns the defendant’s interstate transport or shipment of a stolen firearm with knowledge or reasonable cause of stolen status; § 922(j) addresses specified receipt, concealment or disposition of a firearm with an interstate nexus and the required knowledge. Section 922(u) concerns a covered licensee’s business inventory and its interstate history. Sections 924(l) and (m) define separate theft penalties; none makes every California firearm-theft case a federal prosecution. Compare the gun’s provenance, inventory status, who moved it, the timing of any interstate movement and any actual federal document. Those facts help counsel test jurisdiction and mental state, and also prevent a state plea from being described as an automatic bar to a separate federal matter. Only the actual charges and judgment support a sentence comparison.

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 any supported federal allegation, the serious-felony designation and firearm-rights consequences of the actual judgment. 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 short, authorized taking may raise a defense, while an unauthorized taking intended to deprive the owner long enough to lose a major portion of value or enjoyment can satisfy theft intent even if return was planned. The full duration, consent and evidence matter.

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 covered dealer inventory was involved, what the person did in interstate commerce, and any actual federal notice — should be checked before describing a federal case. A state allegation alone does not create a second prosecution.

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 a qualifying conviction may affect later sentencing, subject to the later charge and available relief.

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 required theft intent, which can include sufficiently extended deprivation, and the alleged lack of consent. An automatic felony designation does not mean an automatic conviction. The serious-felony designation applies to a qualifying conviction; it does not remove the prosecution’s burden to prove the count. 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; a separate receiving allegation requires proof that the person knew the property 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
• Firm-reported state resolution — whether federal authorities investigated or declined charges requires the actual case record
• Probation achieved — state prison avoided; formal felony probation rather than incarceration
• Immigration-aware 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 relevant communications, access records and the actual charging papers should be gathered promptly.

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 actual allegations, if any, control whether a federal-law assessment is needed.

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 firearm-rights restrictions, 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.

Firm-reported past results — outcomes depend on each case and do not guarantee a similar result:

• 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 and at-entry intent were disputed; the firm reports the PC § 459 charge was dismissed; remaining firearm charge resolved on significantly more favorable terms
• State disposition obtained in a firm-reported case; the existence or effect of any federal review requires the actual record
• 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
• Firm-reported immigration-aware 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?

For a conviction under § 487(d)(2), yes: firearm theft is grand theft at any value, and § 489(a) prescribes a state-prison term of 16 months, two years or three years. Section 490.2(c) expressly excludes firearm theft from its low-value petty-theft rule. The $950 rule affects many ordinary thefts but is not the sole dividing line between a misdemeanor or felony in every theft case. The prosecution must still prove that the item was a firearm, the taking was without consent, and the required theft intent; a different charged offense or resolution must be assessed separately.

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

A conviction for grand theft of a firearm is listed as a serious felony and can be a prior strike under California’s Three Strikes law. One pleaded and proved prior strike generally invokes the separate second-strike rule in a later felony case; it does not mean every later sentence automatically doubles without examining the charge and judgment. A qualifying third-strike case requires two prior strikes and a new qualifying serious or violent felony, subject to current law and relief. An ordinary record dismissal should not be assumed to erase prior-strike effects. Before a plea, counsel should verify the exact conviction, prior allegations and options rather than promise a permanent or automatic future outcome.

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

A conviction under § 487(d)(2) is not an ordinary wobbler: § 489(a) prescribes a state-prison term, and the offense is listed as a serious felony. A § 17(b) reduction of that conviction should not be promised. The complaint and proof still matter: the defense can contest whether a firearm was taken, ownership and consent, theft intent, identification and any separate charge. A legally supported different charge or disposition is a separate question. A felony conviction can restrict firearm possession, but its exact scope and any later relief require review of the judgment and current state and federal law; do not treat every consequence as automatically irreversible.

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

Theft intent includes an intent to deprive the owner permanently or long enough to remove a major portion of the property’s value or enjoyment. Saying “I planned to return it” does not alone defeat that second theory. Counsel should reconstruct the purpose and expected duration, ownership, consent, communications and what happened to the firearm. For example, a genuinely authorized brief handling and a prolonged unauthorized removal pose different questions. The prosecution bears the burden of proving the required theft intent beyond a reasonable doubt; the defendant does not have to prove innocence. An alleged temporary taking is evidence to assess, not an automatic dismissal or guaranteed lesser offense.

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

Possession alone does not prove the original theft. A separate receiving-stolen-property allegation under § 496 requires proof that the person knew the item was stolen when the relevant receipt or concealment occurred. Statements may be direct evidence; price, documentation, seller representations and behavior may be circumstantial evidence. A fair price or apparently legitimate transaction can help, but neither conclusively defeats contrary knowledge evidence. Section 496 also has a low-value misdemeanor rule subject to specified priors, so a firearm does not make every receiving case an automatic felony. Counsel should compare the actual complaint, property value, transaction and any distinct firearm-possession charge.

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

Possibly, if the facts meet a distinct federal statute. Section 922(i) concerns the person’s interstate transport or shipment of a stolen firearm with knowledge or reasonable cause that it was stolen; § 922(u) concerns a firearm in a covered licensee’s business inventory that moved in interstate commerce. Sections 924(l) and (m) address specified theft theories and provide statutory maximums, not a blanket mandatory minimum. A firearm merely crossing a state line, or merely being mentioned in a state charge, does not prove the defendant committed a federal offense. Bring the actual complaint, inventory or transaction records and any federal notice to counsel so each allegation and potential sentence can be evaluated separately.

What happens to my firearm rights after a conviction?

A felony conviction can bar firearm possession under California and federal law, a serious issue for someone whose employment or license involves firearms. The duration, coverage and possible relief depend on the exact conviction, other prohibitions and current law; a routine record dismissal should not be assumed to restore rights. The court judgment and any separate protective or licensing order also matter. Counsel should verify status before the person tries to possess or acquire a firearm. Neither a permanent ban in every case nor automatic restoration after probation is a sound promise.

Will a conviction affect my immigration status?

It can. Federal immigration law may treat a theft-related conviction as involving moral turpitude, but a particular aggravated-felony classification, removability, detention or naturalization issue depends on the statute, conviction record, sentence and individual immigration history. The firearm label alone does not establish every result. A noncitizen should obtain case-specific advice from qualified criminal and immigration counsel before agreeing to a plea and should bring the complaint, proposed disposition and prior immigration paperwork. No criminal resolution should be described as categorically immigration-safe without that review.

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 can carry a serious-felony designation and firearm-rights consequences. A separate federal case requires facts meeting federal statutory elements; it is not activated by the firearm label alone. Preserve communications about ownership, access and consent; obtain the complaint and any court notice. Counsel can compare the alleged taking and theft intent with § 487(d)(2), examine any separate § 496 allegation, and assess a specific federal theory only if its elements are implicated. The state charging record, not an assumed deadline, should guide the next step.

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

Legal context for the firm statement: theft intent may include sufficiently extended deprivation, federal charges require their own statutory elements, and firearm-rights restrictions and prior-strike effects require individual review. The quotation is a firm statement, not a ruling on those consequences in a particular case.