People v. Velez (5th DCA) - California's current CCW scheme ruled constitutional

[ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ]

The 5th District Court of Appeal, a California appellate court, has held in People v. Velez (Dec. 2, 2022, F081839), that when the good cause requirement is severed, that California's CCW licensing scheme is constitutional under NYSRPA v. Bruen. So essentially, a Californian court has said that it still is constitutional to require a person to go through California's licensing process for a License to Carry, as long as good cause is not required. As a published opinion, this decision is binding on all California trial courts, regardless of how well or how poor is the reasoning. So do not expect any more decisions like People v. Diaz, which was heavily discussed at https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1809810

The opinion is at https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/d...ts/F081839.PDF

The relevant discussion is at pages 40 to 49.

[TruOil]

Defendant also challenged the "good moral character" element, but the appeals court merely concluded that Bruen did not invalidate such a provision, only "good cause.". Of consequence, it did not engage in the history text an tradition analysis demanded by Bruen. I suspect a poor pleading job by appellate counsel, or in the alternative that the cases (now stayed) invalidating NY's GMC provisions had yet to be published when the briefs were written or the decision drafted.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Defendant also challenged the "good moral character" element, but the appeals court merely concluded that Bruen did not invalidate such a provision, only "good cause.". Of consequence, it did not engage in the history text an tradition analysis demanded by Bruen. I suspect a poor pleading job by appellate counsel, or in the alternative that the cases (now stayed) invalidating NY's GMC provisions had yet to be published when the briefs were written or the decision drafted.

This is a straight up gangbanger case looking to use Bruen to excuse his client's stupidity to get out of some charges. Good moral character would need to be challenged by someone denied a permit on that basis. This guy aint it.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by press1280

This is a straight up gangbanger case looking to use Bruen to excuse his client's stupidity to get out of some charges. Good moral character would need to be challenged by someone denied a permit on that basis. This guy aint it.

Agree! Furthermore, the discussion about whether or not CA's good cause and GMC requirements make CA's CCW licensing scheme unconstitutional is dicta! This gangbanger POS did not have standing! Also, making it some what difficult to challenge CA's good cause and GMC requirements is the fact that many sheriffs do not use these provisions to deny permits.

[bwiese]

Any real further change in CCW stuff will (other than regulatory trivia) likely be conducted in Federal courts.

The big battle will be GMC (Good Moral Character) having a varying threshold for issuance across the state and differing from the more 'standardized' GMC requirements for gov't employ (and armed gov't employ).

If someone is failing GMC for issuance [now that GC is gone] and yet there are armed public employees in that locale or even state with worse 'negative GMC characteristics' then there are problems.

The GMC fight may ulitmately involve finding the 'worst still-employed cop' (or deputy or armed guard or CHPpie etc) in the region or state. [This is even more true if issuance has a substantive training requirement/test which the GMC-denied applicant has already passed w flying colors.] This could get to be a very funny public 'Find Waldo' game.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by bwiese

Any real further change in CCW stuff will (other than regulatory trivia) likely be conducted in Federal courts.

The big battle will be GMC (Good Moral Character) having a varying threshold for issuance across the state and differing from the more 'standardized' GMC requirements for gov't employ (and armed gov't employ).

If someone is failing GMC for issuance [now that GC is gone] and yet there are armed public employees in that locale or even state with worse 'negative GMC characteristics' then there are problems.

The GMC fight may ulitmately involve finding the 'worst still-employed cop' (or deputy or armed guard or CHPpie etc) in the region or state. [This is even more true if issuance has a substantive training requirement/test which the GMC-denied applicant has already passed w flying colors.] This could get to be a very funny public 'Find Waldo' game.

Yes! If you look at the published GMC cases you will discovery that many, if not most, involve attorneys and the conduct required to fall below the standard is pretty bad. If my recollection is correct, multiple DUIs is not enough.

[Ubermcoupe]

Originally Posted by bwiese

...

The GMC fight may ultimately involve finding the 'worst still-employed cop' (or deputy or armed guard or CHPpie etc) in the region or state. [This is even more true if issuance has a substantive training requirement/test which the GMC-denied applicant has already passed w flying colors.] This could get to be a very funny public 'Find Waldo' game.

"Sunshine Initiative" v2.0.

[OldGeek]

<snip>

"Any real further change in CCW stuff will (other
The GMC fight may ulitmately involve finding the 'worst still-employed cop' (or deputy or armed guard or CHPpie etc) in the region or state."

LOL

[Gator15]

Eh, they danced around Bruen and basically said that you can't throw out the entirety of the permitting law if the good character requirement is unconstitutional. Plenty more to challenge, like the @$500 I have to pay for all the prerequisite fees, courses and background check.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

Yes! If you look at the published GMC cases you will discovery that many, if not most, involve attorneys and the conduct required to fall below the standard is pretty bad. If my recollection is correct, multiple DUIs is not enough.

Yes, generally 'moral turpitude' matters.

If a cop/deputy loses his ability to carry thru some sorta misconduct,
that's the GMC threshold.

If a cop/deputy can still be armed (or retire armed!) despite ugly conduct
then that GMC is the bottom threshold.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by bwiese

Yes, generally 'moral turpitude' matters.

If a cop/deputy loses his ability to carry thru some sorta misconduct,
that's the GMC threshold.

If a cop/deputy can still be armed (or retire armed!) despite ugly conduct
then that GMC is the bottom threshold.

Multiple DUIs is enough for an attorney to lose his license, or at the very least have it suspended for a period of time measured in years. It is considered an act of moral turpitude.

[Kokopelli]

Originally Posted by Gator15

Eh, they danced around Bruen and basically said that you can't throw out the entirety of the permitting law if the good character requirement is unconstitutional. Plenty more to challenge, like the @$500 I have to pay for all the prerequisite fees, courses and background check.

Bold part makes it difficult for the poor, people on a fixed income, or on Social Security, to exercise their rights. It stinks.

[EustaceBaggs]

The difference here is between a privilege and a right. The state may impose restrictions on a privilege (being an attorney) but not on being a prerequisite to exercise a right.

[press1280]

Well you would think if someone fails GMC then they'd be ineligible from even possessing, right?
How do you say someone has bad character to be able to carry a firearm yet is OK still owning one?

[Libertarian777]

More BS.
These courts just make up crap.
While kavanaugh did say they can have permitting schemes, Bruen did not ONLY outlaw 'GC' requirements, Bruen removed ANY form of SUBJECTIVE permitting.

If you are not prohibited from owning a firearm you qualify.
Possibly they can argue about training requirements but THT will actually make even that requirement moot.

Hell some of the last around ratification even let criminals carry provided they post a bond

[EustaceBaggs]

Here is the issue with good moral character. The state uses that to determine whether it grants you PRIVILEGES, ie practicing law. Using it to allow you to defend your life converts a RIGHT to a PRIVILEGE and can't be tolerated under any circumstance.

[ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ]

On March 1, 2023, the California Supreme Court denied review in this case, People v. Velez, meaning no further review in this case about California's licensing scheme for CCW. But the California Supreme Court also ordered this case unpublished, meaning that there is no binding California court opinion about the constitutionality of California's licensing scheme. So I expect defense attorneys to continue to argue that prosecutions for violations of PC25400 and PC25850 to be unconstitutional.

[DolphinFan]

Except that part of Diaz was Aaron?s.
It is Aaron?s v Municipal Court that says ?you don?t need a permit, government permission, to exercise an enumerated right.?

Where don?t apply for my First Amendment permit/license?
Am I required to take a background check of prior auditory verbal out or writing sample?
Do I need to pass a spelling and punctuation test?
Can I be limited to 10 words at a time?

See how that works?

Courts can say all they want, it comes down to the following sentence/statement;
? we to agree and hold consistent with Heller and McDonald that the second and 14th amendment protects and individuals to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.?

[CCWFacts]

One question I have about California's CCW law:

What about non-residents? If there's a right to bear arms, surely that applies equally to non-residents who are visiting, and yet right now they have basically no way of getting a permit. I realize there's a 90 day business purpose permit, but I've never heard of it being issued, it's a ridiculous barrier to exercise of the right, and what about people who don't have a business purpose at all, such as a family visit?

[SpudmanWP]

Currently, there is no way that I know of to get a "visitor permit" in CA.

This will obviously be a great reason to force "national reciprocity" through court action since my rights don't disappear when I cross out of my home State's boundaries.

[Superben104]

Currently, non-residents will need to contact their issuing authority for their consideration. CCWLs have been issued to individuals who work in the state and/or active duty military members permanently stationed in California.

Until CA allows constitutional carry, no other state IA allows you to carry in the state.

[bigstick61]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

One question I have about California's CCW law:

What about non-residents? If there's a right to bear arms, surely that applies equally to non-residents who are visiting, and yet right now they have basically no way of getting a permit. I realize there's a 90 day business purpose permit, but I've never heard of it being issued, it's a ridiculous barrier to exercise of the right, and what about people who don't have a business purpose at all, such as a family visit?

Seems like a violation of the equal protection clause to me, but then so would be allowing LE to carry outside of their duties while limiting private citizens as had been the practice in parts of the country.

To the extent that it impacts U.S. citizens, it would also seem to implicate the privileges and immunities clause, even in its pre-14th Amendment form, as one of the privileges of citizenship covered by this particular legal term of art was keeping and bearing arms, so some modality for each is protected. To deny non-residents who are also citizens that ability to bear arms altogether outside of some unincorporated areas would seem to conflict with this.

I suspect lawsuits on this matter would need to be filed to get it addressed.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

Agree! Furthermore, the discussion about whether or not CA's good cause and GMC requirements make CA's CCW licensing scheme unconstitutional is dicta! This gangbanger POS did not have standing! Also, making it some what difficult to challenge CA's good cause and GMC requirements is the fact that many sheriffs do not use these provisions to deny permits.

I've been around long enough to remember when Heller told us about bearing arms in public (in a pocket...) and everyone said that was only "dicta."

Then along came Bruen and it turned out that it wasn't just dicta after all.


I keep asking myself if are people so caught up in their own versions of truth that they cannot understand that every word in an opinion is part of the opinion and a denial of the existence of those words is done at your own peril? The answer apparently is, yes.

My thinking has always been that if the court says something in an opinion they had a reason. I may not be correct when I interpret what the court says, but ignoring or twisting what the court says just to fit it within an ideology isn't the best idea anyone ever came up with.