California Gun Licensing Law Does Not Violate Bruen
After executing a search warrant at a home in Sacramento County, detectives observed Juanita Mosqueda drive up to the residence, exit her car and walk into the house. Jaime Mosqueda drove up to the residence shortly thereafter. Juanita exited the home’s side yard with a black bag and gave it to Jaime, who then drove away. Detectives then stopped Jaime and looked into the black bag, finding an unregistered, loaded handgun.
The Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office charged Jaime Mosqueda and Juanita Mosqueda each with unlawfully carrying a concealed firearm (Penal Code § 25400(a)(2)), carrying a loaded firearm on one’s person or in a vehicle (Penal Code § 25850(a)) and other charges not relevant to this article. Neither Mosqueda was a felon, so neither was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Each defendant pleaded not guilty, but prior to the preliminary hearing filed demurrers pursuant to Penal Code § 1004(4) on grounds that the facts do not constitute a public offense. The demurrer argued that Penal Code § 26150(a)’s licensure requirements to show “good cause” and “good moral character” were unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. ___ , 142 S. Ct. 2111, 213 L. Ed. 2d 387. Since such licensing requirements were invalid, defendants could not be prosecuted for carrying a concealed handgun without a license.
In Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal constitution protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense. Id. at p. 2122. However, this right was certainly not unlimited and it was “subject to certain reasonable, well-defined restrictions.” Id. at 2156. Accordingly, for a state to justify a firearm regulation, the government “must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. at 2126.
California’s handgun licensing regime is similar to New York’s. Bruen, supra, at 2123-2124. A county sheriff “may issue” a license to carry a concealed handgun upon proof that “good cause” exists for issuing the license. Penal Code § 26150(a)(2). The individual must be fingerprinted and pass a background check and must prove that he or she is of “good moral character,” resides or works in the issuing county or city, and has completed a firearm safety course. Penal Code §§ 26150(a)(1), (3) – (4); 26155(a)(1), (3), (4), 26185((a); 26195(a).
The Mosquedas contended they had standing under the First Amendment right of petition to contest the state licensing scheme by demurrer whether or not they applied for a license because they faced an injury capable of being redressed, imprisonment.
The Sacramento County Superior Court judge handling the demurrer sustained the demurrer and dismissed the case, ruling that Bruen wholly invalidated California’s licensing scheme. Moreover, since Bruen declared the public carrying of firearms to be “presumptively legal,” defendants could not be prosecuted under statutes criminalizing public carry without a license.
The People appealed to the California Court of Appeal for the Third District, arguing that the trial court erred in finding the Mosquedas had standing because they never applied for and had been denied a concealed carry license.
The People also argued that Bruen did not wholly invalidate California’s concealed carry licensing scheme. It only invalidated the “good cause” requirement, which is severable from the rest of the licensing scheme, which remains constitutional. They argued, in other words, that the trial court’s interpretation of Bruen was overly broad.
The Third District Court reversed the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court agreed that Bruen made California’s “good cause” requirement for a concealed carry license invalid. However, even without express language confirming or prohibiting severability, an unconstitutional statute remains effective to the extent its invalid provisions are severable because the remaining provisions were complete in themselves and could be applied independently.
Accordingly, the Third District held that California’s concealed carry licensing statute did not facially violate the Second Amendment.
Client Reviews
★★★★★
"Thank you so much for putting so much effort in this case. We really appreciate it and we are happy that all turned out well." S.A., Torrance
★★★★★
"Greg Hill did an outstanding job on every level. He was efficient, thorough, knowledgeable, courteous, responsive & brilliant. He welcomed my input and my concerns. . . from the first conversation to the last - I always felt 'it mattered' to him." S.C., Rolling Hills Estates
★★★★★
"Thanks again for your hard work. We want you to know that we are very appreciative of all that you have done [on our son's] behalf. With warmest regards." L.H., Torrance
★★★★★
"Dear Greg, Thank you again for all your help. Your professionalism and thoroughness is greatly admired. I will definitely recommend you to my friends if they ever need legal help." V.L., Carson
★★★★★
"Thanks for investing in my case. I talked to other attorneys out there and they had an arms-length of attitude, but not you. Your intensity and interest helped a lot." C.R., Pomona