94 Cal.App.5th 935
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- Stephanie Miller was charged (Feb. 2022) with carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle under Penal Code § 25400(a)(1); charge alleged the firearm was loaded, not registered to her, and readily accessible.
- Section 25655 exempts persons licensed under California’s concealed-carry licensing scheme (Cal. Penal Code §§ 26150, 26155, 26165, 26195); those statutes require proof of good moral character and "good cause."
- Miller demurred, arguing under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen that California’s licensing "good cause" (and "good moral character") requirements are unconstitutional and thus she could not be prosecuted under the statutory scheme.
- The district attorney argued Miller lacked standing because she never applied for a license, that Bruen only invalidated the "good cause" component (and the remainder is severable), and that § 25400 remains constitutional.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the charge. The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding (assuming Miller had standing) that § 25400—the concealed-carry prohibition—does not violate the Second Amendment even if some licensing provisions are unconstitutional, and remanded to reinstate the charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Miller) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge licensing without applying for a license | Miller lacked standing because she never applied and cannot show she would meet licensing conditions | Standing exists; a defendant prosecuted under an allegedly unconstitutional licensing framework may challenge it without applying | Court assumed, without deciding, Miller had standing but resolved claim on the merits against her |
| Scope of Bruen’s holding as to state licensing regimes | Bruen invalidated New York’s proper-cause requirement only; California’s other licensing provisions remain valid and severable | Bruen renders California’s licensing scheme (good cause and good moral character) unconstitutional, so exemption from § 25400 is void | Court agreed Bruen implicates California licensing, but that does not control outcome of § 25400 challenge |
| Constitutionality of § 25400 (prohibition on concealed carry) after Bruen | § 25400 remains constitutional; historical tradition permits bans on concealed carry | If licensing scheme is unconstitutional, prosecuting under § 25400 is unlawful because the exemption framework is gone | Court held § 25400 is constitutional under the Second Amendment regardless of licensing statute validity because historical tradition permits prohibitions on concealed carry |
| Remedy and effect of decision | Reinstate prosecution; demurrer was wrongly sustained | Dismiss charges (trial court’s decision) | Reversed trial court; remanded with directions to overrule the demurrer and reinstate the case |
Key Cases Cited
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (adopted historical-tradition test for Second Amendment and struck down New York’s proper-cause licensing standard)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognized individual right to possess firearms for self‑defense in the home; noted historical acceptance of concealed‑weapons prohibitions)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (held Second Amendment applies to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2016) (discussed interplay of open and concealed carry and observed historical treatment of concealed‑carry bans)
- People v. Flores, 169 Cal.App.4th 568 (2008) (upheld a concealed‑carry prohibition post‑Heller)
- People v. Yarbrough, 169 Cal.App.4th 303 (2008) (analyzed constitutionality of concealed‑carry restrictions under Second Amendment)
- Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897) (historic statement that laws prohibiting concealed weapons do not infringe the right to keep and bear arms)