97 Cal. App. 5th 399
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- Deputies executed a warrant, recovered a loaded handgun from a bag in Jaime Mosqueda’s car; both Jaime and Juanita were charged with unlawfully carrying/concealed and loaded-firearm offenses (Pen. Code §§ 25400, 25850).
- Defendants demurred pre‑trial, arguing that Bruen invalidated California’s concealed‑carry licensing statute (Pen. Code § 26150) — specifically its “good cause” and “good moral character” requirements — making their prosecutions unconstitutional.
- The trial court sustained the demurrers and dismissed the charges, concluding Bruen entirely invalidated California’s licensing scheme and that defendants had standing to raise the challenge without first applying for a license.
- The People appealed, arguing defendants lacked standing (they never applied for licenses) and that Bruen invalidated only the “good cause” element, which is severable from § 26150.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: it held defendants have standing to bring a facial challenge by demurrer and ruled that (1) Bruen invalidated California’s “good cause” requirement, but (2) the “good cause” and, assuming arguendo it is invalid, the “good moral character” provisions are severable, and (3) Bruen did not facially invalidate the statute’s discretionary "may issue" language.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to raise facial Second Amendment challenge by demurrer | People: defendants lack standing because they never applied for or were denied carry licenses | Defendants: prosecutorial jeopardy from enforcing an allegedly facially unconstitutional licensing scheme gives standing without applying first | Held: defendants have standing to bring a facial demurrer challenge (Smith v. Cahoon line of First Amendment permit cases applies; Bruen aligns 2A with 1A protections) |
| Scope of Bruen’s invalidation | People: Bruen invalidated only the “good cause”/proper‑cause requirement; other licensing provisions survive | Defendants: Bruen invalidates the entire licensing regime, so prosecutions for public carry without license are unconstitutional | Held: Bruen invalidated the good‑cause requirement, but not the entire § 26150 regime; criminal enforcement of carry laws remains viable when a valid licensing path exists |
| Severability of the “good cause” requirement | People: excising good cause is grammatically, functionally, and volitionally feasible; statute survives | Defendants: good cause is integral and not severable | Held: the good‑cause provision is severable from § 26150 (subdivision structure and legislative history support separability) |
| Validity/severability of “good moral character” and “may issue” discretion | People: good moral character and discretionary language are historically consistent or operate as objective/suitable standards; if problematic, severable | Defendants: good moral character and "may issue" vest unbridled discretion, rendering § 26150 facially unconstitutional | Held: court assumed (for argument) good moral character might be unconstitutional but held it severable; Bruen did not facially invalidate the statute’s "may issue" language — any overbroad discretion is for as‑applied challenges |
Key Cases Cited
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (U.S. 2022) (establishes historical‑tradition test for Second Amendment and strikes New York’s proper‑cause requirement)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognizes individual right to possess firearms for self‑defense in the home and frames original Second Amendment analysis)
- Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U.S. 553 (U.S. 1931) (criminal defendant may challenge facially unconstitutional licensing statute without first obtaining a license)
- Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, 9 Cal.4th 1069 (Cal. 1995) (defendant may raise facial constitutional challenges by demurrer; as‑applied challenges are not proper on demurrer)
- In re D.L., 93 Cal.App.5th 144 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023) (juvenile allowed to challenge firearm conviction post‑Bruen; discusses severability and standing)
- People v. Miller, 94 Cal.App.5th 935 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023) (similar post‑Bruen analysis; assumed standing but rejected facial invalidation of concealed‑carry prohibitions)
- United States v. Decastro, 682 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2012) (distinguishes as‑applied standing where defendant never sought state license; discussed by court but found not controlling)
- Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Int. Union v. Davis, 21 Cal.4th 585 (Cal. 1999) (severability standard: grammatical, functional, volitional separability)
- California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos, 53 Cal.4th 231 (Cal. 2011) (elaborates severability analysis)
- Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1969) (First Amendment permitting cases supporting exception to permit‑first standing rule)