91 Cal.App.5th 469
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background:
- In 2021 a jury convicted Alex Joseph Alexander of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition (Pen. Code, §§ 29800(a)(1), 30305(a)(1)); he admitted a 2006 attempted murder conviction and the court found a prior strike; sentence: 2 years, 8 months.
- Alexander mounted a facial Second Amendment challenge to California’s felon-possession bans, invoking the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen (2022) and arguing the statutes are unconstitutional on their face.
- The Court of Appeal framed the dispute under Bruen’s two-step replacement: first ask whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the regulated conduct; if so, the government must show the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
- The panel applied facial-challenge principles (reviewing only the statute’s text and applying de novo review to statutory interpretation and constitutionality) and Bruen’s framework.
- The court concluded it need not proceed to historical inquiry because the conduct (felons possessing firearms or ammunition) is not covered by the Second Amendment’s protection, as Heller and Bruen limit the right to "law-abiding, responsible citizens."
Issues:
| Issue | People (Plaintiff) | Alexander (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Penal Code §§ 29800(a)(1) and 30305(a)(1) are facially invalid under the Second Amendment per Bruen | Statutes are valid because felon dispossession targets persons who are not "law-abiding, responsible citizens" and thus lie outside the Amendment’s scope | Statutes facially violate Bruen and Heller because the Second Amendment protects an individual right to armed self-defense and ex-felons who are currently law-abiding should be included | Affirmed: statutes facially valid; felons are excluded from the class of "the people" protected by the Second Amendment, so analysis ends at Bruen’s first step |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizes individual right to possess firearms for self-defense; notes longstanding presumptively lawful prohibitions including felon dispossession)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporates the Second Amendment against the states)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (establishes historical-tradition test and emphasizes the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to armed self-defense)
- People v. Gonzalez, 75 Cal.App.5th 907 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (California Court of Appeal discussion of pre-Bruen two-step Second Amendment analysis)
- Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, 9 Cal.4th 1069 (1995) (facial-challenge standard: review the statute’s text, not individual application)
- People v. Health Laboratories of North America, Inc., 87 Cal.App.4th 442 (2001) (statutory interpretation and constitutionality reviewed de novo)
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (2007) (facial challenges may be raised for the first time on appeal)