Page 1
Court of Appeal:
California’s Firearms Licensing Scheme Is Constitutional
Justices Reject Contention That Permit Requirement Violates 2922 U.S. Supreme Court Decision
By a MetNews Staff Writer
California’s requirement of obtaining a license to carry a concealed firearm does not violate the 2022 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court invalidating a New York statute conditioning gun-toting on possession of such a permit because that state’s law mandated a showing of “proper cause” for an application to be approved, Div. Four of the First District Court of Appeal decided yesterday.
A “good cause” requirement was removed by the California Legislature from the licensing statute in 2023.
Justice Jon B. Streeter wrote the opinion. It affirms the convictions of Elijah Dovell Roberts for carrying a concealed, loaded firearm in a vehicle and carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle that was registered to a third party who was not present.
Roberts lacks a firearms permit.
No ‘Dangerousness’ Requirement
The defendant sought to invoke the U.S. high court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, contending that under it, California’s licensing scheme transgresses the Second Amendment because it permits denial of an application without a determination of “dangerousness.” In Bruen, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:
“[W]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’ ”
Streeter said in yesterday’s opinion:
“We hold that, since licensure is a reasonable mode of screening that aids the state in determining who is a felon, and thus automatically ineligible for a license, it does not violate the Second Amendment to require licensure as a prerequisite to possessing a firearm.”
Convicted Felons
He reasoned:
“In this case, the record is silent whether, at the time of the offenses at issue here, Roberts had been convicted of a felony. For all we know, he was a law-abiding citizen up to that point. But since this is a facial constitutional challenge, and taking as our premise that California can criminally proscribe convicted felons from carrying concealed firearms…we build on that premise and hold that it can also require those who wish to carry concealed weapons publicly to obtain a license as a prerequisite, without a finding of dangerousness.”
Streeter declared that “Roberts’s dangerousness argument overreads Bruen.”
He noted that “[t]wo published California cases reject Second Amendment challenges to statutes that limit firearm possession without a prerequisite finding of a defendant’s criminality or dangerousness” but said that “[n]either of these cases squarely addresses the Second Amendment issue Roberts presents.”
The case is People v. Roberts, 2025 S.O.S. 2413.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company