Another Second Amendment Update: Defendant Argues 2A Would Have Protected His Right to Carry and Such a Requirement is Illegal

Second Amendment Update 
By Robert Phillips  
Deputy District Attorney (ret.) 

Legal Issues 

California’s Licensing Requirement pursuant to Pen. Code §§ 26150, 26155 

California’s First District Court of Appeals (Div. 4) has chimed in with its own Second Amendment decision in the recent case of People v. Roberts (Sep. 8, 2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 187.  

In this case, defendant Elijah Dovell Roberts was stopped by a California Highway Patrol officer while speeding in Concord. Determining that Roberts was unlicensed to drive a motor vehicle, police impounded his car. After a legal inventory search, officers found a loaded firearm and a pile of cash. The firearm was registered to someone else. As result, Roberts was charged in state court with violations of P.C. § 25400(a)(1), carrying a concealed, loaded firearm in a vehicle, and P.C. § 25850(a) & (c)(6), carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle when the firearm was not registered to him.  

Citing New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. 1, Roberts argued that a license to carry a firearm (commonly referred to as a CCW permit) would have provided him with a defense to these charges and that the statutory requirement (P.C. §§ 26150, 26155) to have such a license violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. Upon denial of his motion by the trial court, Roberts appealed. 

The First District Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that requiring a CCW permit did not violate the Second Amendment. The court set out the legal standards to be used when making such a decision. The court first noted that “(a) defendant challenging the constitutionality of a statute carries a heavy burden.” Further, the courts must presume the constitutionality of a statute unless it “clearly, positively, and unmistakenly” appears to be unconstitutional. (In re D.L. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 144, 156-157.)  

A defendant may challenge the constitutionality of a statute in either of two ways: “on its face or as applied.” (Ibid.) “A facial challenge seeks to void the statute as a whole by showing that ‘no set of circumstances exists under which the [statute] would be ....

© 2026 Legal Updates, LLC.
This content is protected by copyright law. Republishing or redistribution in any form without written permission is strictly prohibited. For licensing or reprint requests, contact support@legalupdates.com.