I don't like that CA even has that law. It may even come down to the prosecution deciding whether or not they want to slap a very questionable felony on the guy.
When you buy a gun, a reference to laws will come with it assuming it wasn't purchased from a private party. In any case, it is strongly noted that you should know your state laws and stressed in that pamphlet.
In Smith's case, it will likely come down to not having registered it before 2005 regardless of where he purchased it. I do not believe Smith having the firearm is "bad", the state of CA does. To add to matters, gun control advocates are so bent on getting rid of them that when the opportunity to implement policy presents itself, the judicial system takes what they can. There have been many cases of people, good people being hit with felony convictions for the very thing Smith is charged with.
The other thing to consider is that the prosecution hasn't dropped the charges and I promise you that Smith's attorney has been discussing it from day 1. In the interest of that the defense has already been argued. There is always the chance of a last second deal, but this has been standing for some time and I am positive that Smith will do anything to keep that sort of felony off of his record.
If he gets convicted, regardless of punishment the results will be awful for his future. I don't even want the guy convicted for it because it establishes a standard that I don't agree with. Smith obviously has a better attorney than the average guy that is hit with the same charge, he has that and money in his favor.
