People v. Alvarez CA6, H050620

Background:

Bryan Alvarez pleaded no contest to one felony count for carrying a loaded concealed firearm while not listed as the registered owner; the court suspended sentence and placed him on probation with 60 days jail.
Alvarez’s demurrer claiming the controlling Penal Code statute violated the Second Amendment was overruled; he obtained a certificate of probable cause to appeal that ruling.
Alvarez argued California’s concealed-carry licensing statutes (including "good cause," "may issue," and "good moral character" provisions) are facially unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen.
The Attorney General conceded California’s "good cause" requirement is unconstitutional under Bruen, asserted it is severable and no longer enforced, and maintained the remaining licensing requirements remain lawful.
The Court of Appeal assumed without deciding Alvarez had standing to bring a facial challenge but held his challenge fails because the unconstitutional ‘‘good cause’’ provision is severable and the remainder of the licensing regime can constitutionally support criminal liability for unlicensed concealed carry.
The court distinguished First Amendment permit cases (Shuttlesworth, Staub) and denied retroactive relief, affirming Alvarez’s conviction.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Alvarez)	Held
Whether California’s concealed-carry licensing statutes violate the Second Amendment (facial challenge)	"Good cause" is unconstitutional but severable; remaining licensing requirements are consistent with Bruen and constitutional	Entire licensing scheme (including may-issue and good moral character) is facially invalid under Bruen	The challenge fails; only "good cause" is invalid and severable; conviction upheld
Standing to bring a facial Second Amendment challenge	Alvarez lacks standing unless he shows he would have obtained a license but for the unconstitutional provision	Facial challenge does not require individualized proof of eligibility; Alvarez has standing	Court assumed standing for purposes of decision but resolved the case on the merits against Alvarez
Whether the existence of an unconstitutional permit provision requires reversing past convictions (retroactivity/severability)	Severability preserves licensing scheme; removal of bad provision does not retroactively void convictions for failing to comply with remaining valid requirements	Relies on Staub and Shuttlesworth: an unconstitutional licensing regime allows defendants to ignore the permit and void convictions	Distinguished Staub/Shuttlesworth; here the defect was severable and substantial licensing requirements remained, so conviction stands
Validity of "may-issue" and "good moral character" language post-Bruen	Bruen does not forbid objective licensing criteria or similar language; such provisions can remain	Challenges to these provisions as facially invalid under Bruen	Court rejected Alvarez’s challenge to those provisions; they may survive Bruen when applied as objective criteria

Key Cases Cited

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (holds carry outside the home is protected and government must show historical tradition to justify modern restrictions; invalidates licensing regimes requiring a special need)
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969) (invalidates discretionary permit regimes as unconstitutional prior restraints on free expression; defendant may ignore such permits)
Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313 (1958) (refuses standing denial where ordinance facially violates constitution and reverses conviction under an invalid permitting scheme)
In re D.L., 93 Cal.App.5th 144 (2023) (California court holds good-cause requirement severable and upholds constitutionality of prosecuting unlicensed public carry)
People v. Alexander, 91 Cal.App.5th 469 (2023) (explains de novo review for statutory interpretation and constitutional questions)