In California, the issuance and maintenance of a Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) license are governed by strict regulations under the Penal Code, specifically sections 26202, 26206, and 26195. These sections outline the criteria for denying a CCW license application, challenging such denials, and revoking an existing license. A critical distinction is that providing inaccurate or incomplete information in the application process is explicitly listed as a ground for revocation under section 26195 but is not expressly mentioned as a basis for denial under section 26202. This discrepancy underscores the importance of honesty, particularly in responding to Question 20 on the California CCW application (Form BOF 4012), which asks, “Have you withheld any fact that might affect the decision to approve this license?” This open-ended question requires applicants to disclose facts that align with the statutorily defined criteria for license approval, but applicants are not obligated to disclose incidents that do not meet these criteria and should limit their responses to the scope of the application’s questions. The vagueness of Question 20, especially concerning the criterion of “behaviors or incidents indicating a reasonable likelihood of danger to self, others, or the community,” raises potential constitutional concerns, including whether it functions as a disguised “good moral character” provision and violates New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (597 U.S. 1, 2022), and how applicants should handle unfounded or baseless allegations of dangerousness. This article examines the reasons for denial and revocation, the processes involved, the implications of the honesty discrepancy, the role and limitations of Question 20, and these constitutional and practical concerns.
Penal Code section 26202 defines a “disqualified person” who is ineligible to receive or renew a CCW license under sections 26150, 26155, or 26170. An application may be denied if the applicant meets any of the following conditions:
If a licensing authority (e.g., a county sheriff or police department) determines within 90 days of receiving a completed application that the applicant is a disqualified person, they must provide written notice of the denial, specifying the reason and informing the applicant of their right to request a hearing under section 26206.
Section 26206 outlines the process for challenging a denial or revocation based on a disqualified person determination. Applicants have 30 days from receiving the denial notice to request a hearing in the superior court of their county of residence, using the “Request for Hearing to Challenge Disqualified Person Determination” form provided by the Department of Justice. Some licensing authorities may require an internal appeal before court proceedings. The court must schedule a hearing within 60 days, and the state bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant is a disqualified person. If the court rules otherwise, it may order the licensing authority to issue the license or reinstate a revoked one.
Notably, section 26202 does not explicitly list providing inaccurate or incomplete information in the application as a ground for denial. Denials focus on the applicant’s status as a disqualified person based on the specified legal, behavioral, or mental health criteria. Following Bruen, subjective criteria such as “good moral character” and “good cause” were removed from the licensing requirements under sections 26150 and 26155, making the process more objective. The criteria for issuance now focus on the absence of disqualified person status, completion of a training course, and meeting residency or business requirements.
Penal Code section 26195 specifies the grounds for revoking an existing CCW license, which include:
Upon revocation, the licensing authority must notify the Department of Justice and the licensee in writing, pursuant to section 26225. If the revocation is based on a disqualified person determination, the licensee may challenge it through the hearing process in section 26206. For other grounds, such as inaccurate information, the licensee may seek a writ of mandate in superior court under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085.
A critical distinction between denial and revocation lies in the treatment of honesty. Section 26195 explicitly includes providing “inaccurate or incomplete information” in the application as a ground for revocation. This means that if a licensee is found to have been dishonest—whether by providing false information or withholding relevant facts—after receiving a CCW license, the licensing authority can revoke it.
In contrast, section 26202 does not explicitly cite inaccurate or incomplete information as a basis for denying an application. Denials are centered on objective criteria defining a disqualified person, such as convictions, active restraining orders, or specific mental health commitments. The absence of subjective criteria like good moral character or good cause in the current statutory framework (post-Bruen) further narrows the grounds for denial to the specific conditions listed in section 26202. This suggests that an applicant who provides inaccurate information or withholds relevant facts might still receive a license if they do not otherwise meet disqualified person criteria, only to face revocation later if the dishonesty is discovered.
This discrepancy highlights the critical role of honesty throughout the application process. Licensing authorities conduct thorough investigations, including background checks and psychological assessments, to verify an applicant’s eligibility. If inaccurate or withheld information is detected during this process, it could lead to a denial if it relates to the disqualified person criteria, but the absence of explicit language in section 26202 means this is not guaranteed. Once a license is issued, section 26195 ensures that dishonesty, including withholding facts that might affect approval, can trigger revocation.
Question 20 on the California CCW application (Form BOF 4012) asks, “Have you withheld any fact that might affect the decision to approve this license?” This open-ended question is designed to ensure applicants disclose any information that could impact their eligibility for a CCW license. Its scope is explicitly limited to facts that align with the statutorily defined criteria for license approval, as outlined in sections 26202, 26150, 26155, and 26170. These criteria include the absence of disqualified person status, completion of a training course, and meeting residency or business requirements.
The phrasing of Question 20 places a direct obligation on applicants to consider whether they have omitted any facts that could influence the licensing authority’s decision. However, the question’s focus on facts that “might affect the decision to approve this license” means that only information relevant to the statutory criteria needs to be disclosed. For example, applicants must disclose facts related to:
Failure to disclose such facts in response to Question 20, or elsewhere in the application, could be considered withholding information, potentially leading to revocation under section 26195 if discovered post-issuance.
Conversely, applicants are not required to disclose facts that do not meet the statutory criteria for denial or the requirements for license approval. For instance:
Applicants are not obligated to be overly inclusive or to disclose information beyond the scope of the application’s questions. Question 20’s focus on statutorily relevant facts protects applicants from feeling compelled to share extraneous personal details, such as minor incidents, personal hardships, or life events that have no bearing on their eligibility. For example, disclosing a traffic violation, a divorce, or a routine medical checkup would be irrelevant unless these directly impact the statutory criteria. Over-inclusiveness could complicate the evaluation process, introduce inconsistencies, or unnecessarily raise questions about the applicant’s judgment.
Applicants must exercise discernment to ensure their response to Question 20 is accurate, complete, and confined to the question’s scope. A “No” answer is appropriate if the applicant has fully disclosed all relevant facts in response to the application’s questions and has not withheld anything that aligns with the statutory criteria for approval. If there are facts to disclose, the response should be concise and focused on information that could impact the licensing decision. Any inaccuracies or omissions in Question 20, such as falsely answering “No” when relevant facts were withheld, could later be grounds for revocation under section 26195 if discovered post-issuance. This reinforces the need for applicants to carefully review their application and ensure all pertinent information is provided without exceeding the boundaries of the questions asked.
The open-ended nature of Question 20, combined with the broad and potentially subjective criterion under section 26202 of “behaviors or incidents indicating a reasonable likelihood of danger to self, others, or the community, as evidenced by the application or investigation,” raises concerns about unconstitutional vagueness. Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a law or regulation is unconstitutionally vague if it fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is required or is so standardless that it invites arbitrary enforcement (Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357-58 (1983)). Question 20’s requirement to disclose any fact that “might affect” the licensing decision, particularly when tied to the ambiguous “danger” criterion, may not meet this constitutional standard. Additionally, the “danger” criterion’s subjective nature raises questions about whether it functions as a disguised “good moral character” provision and whether it violates Bruen. Furthermore, the handling of unfounded or baseless allegations of dangerousness complicates applicants’ obligations under Question 20.
The phrase “behaviors or incidents indicating a reasonable likelihood of danger” in section 26202 is not clearly defined in the statute, leaving significant room for interpretation. Unlike other criteria in section 26202—such as specific convictions, active restraining orders, or defined mental health commitments—this criterion lacks objective parameters. For example, what constitutes a “behavior” or “incident” that indicates a “reasonable likelihood” of danger? Could it include minor disputes, heated arguments, or isolated emotional outbursts that do not rise to the level of criminal conduct or mental health commitments? The absence of clear guidelines makes it difficult for applicants to determine what facts they must disclose under Question 20 to avoid being deemed a disqualified person.
Question 20 exacerbates this issue by asking applicants to self-assess whether they have withheld “any fact” that “might affect” the licensing decision. The term “might” introduces further ambiguity, as it implies a low threshold for disclosure without specifying the nature or severity of the facts in question. An applicant of ordinary intelligence may struggle to discern whether a past incident—such as a verbal altercation, a workplace disagreement, or a moment of emotional distress—qualifies as a fact that “might” indicate a danger under section 26202. This vagueness risks placing applicants in a position where they must guess what information is relevant, potentially chilling the exercise of their Second Amendment rights by discouraging applications out of fear of arbitrary denial or future revocation.
The lack of clear standards in both Question 20 and the “danger” criterion creates a risk of arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement by licensing authorities. Without specific guidance on what constitutes a disqualifying behavior or incident, different licensing authorities (e.g., sheriffs or police chiefs) may apply the criterion inconsistently. For instance, one authority might interpret a single incident of public intoxication as indicating a “likelihood of danger,” while another might not. This discretion, coupled with Question 20’s broad disclosure requirement, could lead to uneven application of the law, where applicants in different jurisdictions face varying standards for the same conduct.
Other criteria in section 26202, such as convictions for contempt of court or specific mental health commitments, are clearly defined and tied to objective events or legal determinations. In contrast, the “danger” criterion relies on a subjective assessment of “likelihood,” which is inherently less precise. Question 20’s open-ended nature amplifies this problem by requiring applicants to anticipate how a licensing authority might interpret their past behaviors or incidents. This contrasts with more specific questions on the CCW application (e.g., those asking about convictions or restraining orders), which provide clear parameters for disclosure.
The vagueness of Question 20 may pressure applicants to err on the side of over-inclusiveness, disclosing irrelevant or minor incidents out of fear that they could be deemed relevant by the licensing authority. This over-disclosure could unnecessarily complicate the application process, invite scrutiny of private matters, or lead to denials based on subjective interpretations of non-disqualifying conduct. For example, an applicant might feel compelled to disclose a past argument or mental health counseling session, even if it does not meet the statutory criteria, simply because the term “might” suggests a broad obligation. This chilling effect could deter qualified individuals from applying for a CCW license, infringing on their Second Amendment rights.
The “danger” criterion in section 26202, which allows denial based on “behaviors or incidents indicating a reasonable likelihood of danger,” bears a striking resemblance to the pre-Bruen “good moral character” requirement that was removed from sections 26150 and 26155. The good moral character standard was criticized for its subjectivity, as it allowed licensing authorities to deny licenses based on vague assessments of an applicant’s character, often without clear evidence or objective criteria. In Bruen, the Supreme Court struck down New York’s “proper cause” requirement for concealed carry licenses, emphasizing that discretionary, subjective standards for exercising Second Amendment rights are constitutionally suspect unless they are consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation (Bruen, 597 U.S. at 24-29).
The “danger” criterion risks functioning as a de facto good moral character provision by allowing licensing authorities to make subjective judgments about an applicant’s suitability based on undefined “behaviors” or “incidents.” For example, a licensing authority might interpret a non-criminal incident, such as a heated argument or a social media post, as indicating a “likelihood of danger,” effectively denying a license based on character-like assessments rather than objective disqualifications. This subjectivity mirrors the discretionary power that Bruen found problematic, as it vests licensing authorities with broad authority to restrict a constitutional right without clear, historically grounded justification.
Under Bruen, firearm regulations must be consistent with the “historical tradition of firearm regulation” in the United States (id. at 17). While some historical regulations allowed restrictions on firearm possession for individuals deemed dangerous (e.g., felons or those adjudicated mentally incompetent), these were typically based on specific, objective criteria, such as convictions or formal adjudications (Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437, 448-50 (7th Cir. 2019)). The “danger” criterion in section 26202, however, lacks such specificity, relying instead on a vague “reasonable likelihood” standard that invites discretionary interpretation. Without clear historical analogues for denying concealed carry licenses based on undefined behaviors or incidents, this criterion may not withstand scrutiny under Bruen’s text-and-history test.
Moreover, Bruen emphasized that the Second Amendment protects the right of “law-abiding, responsible citizens” to carry firearms for self-defense (Bruen, 597 U.S. at 26). The “danger” criterion risks undermining this by allowing denials based on subjective assessments that may not align with objective evidence of non-law-abiding behavior. If courts interpret the criterion as a rebranded good moral character requirement, it could be struck down as incompatible with Bruen’s rejection of discretionary, subjective licensing standards.
The vagueness of Question 20 and the “danger” criterion creates particular challenges for applicants who are aware of allegations of dangerousness that they know or believe to be unfounded or baseless. For example, an applicant might be subject to false accusations from a disgruntled acquaintance, a biased report in a workplace dispute, or an unsubstantiated claim in a civil proceeding. These allegations may not meet the statutory criteria for denial under section 26202 (e.g., they do not involve convictions, active restraining orders, or mental health commitments), but the broad language of Question 20 and the subjective “danger” criterion could lead applicants to fear that failing to disclose such allegations risks revocation for withholding information.
From a legal standpoint, applicants are not required to disclose allegations that do not align with the statutory criteria for denial or approval. If an allegation of dangerousness is baseless—meaning it lacks credible evidence, has been disproven, or does not rise to the level of a disqualifying “behavior or incident” under section 26202—it is unlikely to be a “fact that might affect” the licensing decision. For instance:
However, the vagueness of Question 20 and the “danger” criterion complicates this calculus. Applicants may worry that a licensing authority could later discover an allegation through a background check and interpret non-disclosure as withholding a relevant fact, leading to revocation under section 26195. This fear is heightened by the subjective nature of the “danger” criterion, which lacks clear boundaries for what constitutes a disqualifying incident. To navigate this issue, applicants could consider the following approaches, ideally with legal counsel:
The handling of unfounded allegations underscores the broader constitutional concerns with Question 20 and the “danger” criterion. Applicants may feel compelled to disclose baseless allegations out of fear of revocation, even when such allegations do not meet the statutory criteria. This pressure to over-disclose can infringe on privacy and chill the exercise of Second Amendment rights, particularly if licensing authorities interpret non-disclosure as dishonesty under section 26195.
A court evaluating the constitutionality of Question 20 and the “danger” criterion might find them unconstitutionally vague or incompatible with Bruen for several reasons:
Applicants affected by denials or revocations based on Question 20’s vague requirements or the “danger” criterion could challenge the regulation through a facial or as-applied constitutional challenge in federal or state court, arguing violations of due process or the Second Amendment. Until clarified through legislation, regulation, or judicial interpretation, these issues remain significant concerns for applicants.
The differing treatment of honesty in denial versus revocation, the role and limitations of Question 20, the potential unconstitutional vagueness, the risk of a disguised good moral character standard, and the handling of unfounded allegations have several implications for applicants and licensing authorities:
California’s Penal Code sections 26202, 26206, and 26195 provide a framework for regulating CCW licenses, with clear reasons for denial and revocation. The explicit inclusion of inaccurate or incomplete information as a ground for revocation under section 26195, but not for denial under section 26202, highlights the critical role of honesty in the application process. Question 20, which asks, “Have you withheld any fact that might affect the decision to approve this license?” reinforces this by requiring applicants to disclose facts that align with the statutory criteria for license approval, such as those related to disqualified person status, training, or residency. Applicants are not required to disclose facts that do not meet these criteria, such as dismissed charges, resolved restraining orders outside the statutory timeframe, or irrelevant mental health evaluations, and should limit their responses to avoid over-inclusiveness. However, the vagueness of Question 20, particularly when tied to the “behaviors or incidents indicating a reasonable likelihood of danger” criterion, raises concerns about unconstitutional vagueness and potential conflicts with Bruen, as it may function as a disguised good moral character provision. The handling of unfounded or baseless allegations of dangerousness further complicates applicants’ obligations, as they must balance transparency with the risk of over-disclosure. By prioritizing transparency, relevance, and caution—potentially with legal guidance—applicants can navigate the CCW process, while licensing authorities must ensure their application of these standards complies with constitutional requirements under Bruen and due process.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.