California Courts Uphold Felon Firearm Ban After Supreme Court’s Bruen Decision

By Robert Phillips, Deputy Distrct Attorney (Ret).

Second Amendment Update: Felons in Possession of a Firearm:   

There’s been some debate lately as to whether California’s “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” prohibition (Pen. Code § 29800(a)(1)), as well as the prohibition for felons to possess ammunition (Pen. Code § section 30305(a)(1)), survive constitutional scrutiny after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark case decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. 1.  In Bruen, it was held (in a nutshell) that in light of the Second Amendment’s provision that “the . . . people” have a constitutional “right . . . “to keep and bear Arms,” the government must justify any legislation that it is inconsistent with that right.  Per Bruen: “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’” (Bruen, supra, at p. 24.)  

Just last year, in May, 2024, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in United States v. Duarte (9th Cir. 2024) 101 F.4th 657, that the federal “felon in possession of a firearm” statute (18 U.S.C § 922(g)(1)) violated a defendant’s Second Amendment rights and was unconstitutional, at least as to this defendant, he being “a non-violent offender (even if not “law-abiding”) who had served his time in prison and reentered society,” and was otherwise “an American citizen,” and thus “part of ‘the people’ whom the Second Amendment protects.” (Citing Bruen, at pg. 32.)  But then less than nine months later, along came People v. Richardson (Feb. 19, 2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1203, where California’s Second District Court of Appeals (Div. 8) held to the contrary, specifically ruling that “only law-abiding citizens are among the class of people covered by the text of ....

© 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.