The Davis Law Firm Secures Victory in Siskiyou County CCW Appeal

The Davis Law Firm is proud to announce a recent victory in a concealed carry weapon (CCW) license appeal against the Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Office. This case highlights our firm’s dedication to defending the rights of our clients and ensuring that the law is applied correctly under California’s evolving firearm regulations.

Case Background

Our client applied for a CCW license under California Penal Code sections 26150 and 26155, which govern the issuance of licenses to carry a concealed firearm. The Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Office denied the application, citing two reasons: (1) the client allegedly omitted information from the application, and (2) the client was deemed likely to be a danger to themselves, others, or the community at large, as outlined in California Penal Code section 26202(a)(1).

The client initially appealed the denial in pro per (without an attorney) by filing a “Request for Hearing to Challenge Disqualified Person Determination” within 30 days of the denial notice, as required by Penal Code section 26206(c). During the initial hearing, the Superior Court of Siskiyou County determined that the client was not a danger under Penal Code section 26202(a)(1). However, the court upheld the denial based solely on the omission of information from the application.

The Davis Law Firm’s Intervention

Following the court’s ruling, the client promptly contacted The Davis Law Firm for assistance. Recognizing that the court’s decision may have applied an improper standard, our firm took immediate action. We filed a notice of reconsideration, arguing that the court’s reliance on the omission of information as the sole basis for denial was inconsistent with the legal standards set forth in Penal Code sections 26150, 26155, and 26202, as amended by Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), effective January 1, 2024.

Legal Arguments and Recent Changes in the Law

At the reconsideration hearing, The Davis Law Firm presented a comprehensive argument grounded in the legal framework established by Penal Code sections 26150, 26155, and 26202, as well as the significant changes introduced by SB 2 in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). Prior to SB 2, California’s CCW issuance process required applicants to demonstrate “good cause” for carrying a concealed firearm. The Bruen decision invalidated this subjective requirement, leading California to adopt a “shall-issue” standard under SB 2, provided the applicant meets the objective criteria outlined in Penal Code sections 26150 and 26155.

These criteria include:

• The applicant is not a disqualified person under Penal Code section 26202.

• The applicant is at least 21 years of age and provides clear evidence of identity and age (Penal Code section 16400).
• The applicant is a resident of the county or city within the county, or spends substantial time at their place of employment or business in the jurisdiction.
• The applicant has completed the required 16-hour training course (Penal Code section 26165).
• The applicant is the registered owner of the firearm with the Department of Justice.

Penal Code section 26202(a) specifies the conditions under which an applicant is deemed a “disqualified person,” including being reasonably likely to be a danger to self, others, or the community, having certain convictions, or being subject to specific court orders within the last five years. Importantly, an omission of information unrelated to the objective requirements from the application is not explicitly listed as a disqualifying factor under section 26202(a). Our firm argued that the court’s reliance on the omission as the sole basis for denial was an improper application of the law, as it did not align with the enumerated disqualifying conditions in section 26202(a).

Furthermore, we emphasized that Penal Code section 26206 allows a court to make a contrary determination regarding an applicant’s status as a disqualified person. The initial finding that our client was not a danger under section 26202(a)(1) supported our position that the client met the statutory requirements for a CCW license. We also highlighted the procedural protections afforded to applicants under section 26206, which require the licensing authority to provide clear reasons for denial and allow for judicial review to ensure fair application of the law.

The Court’s Ruling

After careful consideration of our arguments and the legal standards, the Superior Court of Siskiyou County granted our motion for reconsideration. The court reversed its prior denial, finding that the omission of information did not constitute a valid basis for deeming the client a disqualified person under Penal Code section 26202. The court ordered the Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Office to issue the CCW license to our client, affirming their right to carry a concealed firearm in accordance with California law. And, today, our client is able to carry.

Significance of the Victory

This victory underscores the importance of proper legal representation in navigating the complexities of California’s CCW laws, particularly in light of recent legislative changes. The Davis Law Firm’s success in this case demonstrates our ability to effectively advocate for our clients by leveraging a deep understanding of statutory requirements and judicial processes. We are committed to ensuring that lawful applicants are not unjustly denied their Second Amendment rights due to misapplications of the law.

For individuals facing similar challenges with CCW applications or appeals, The Davis Law Firm offers experienced legal counsel to guide you through the process. Contact us today at [email protected] or 866-545-GUNS to learn how we can assist you in securing your right to carry a concealed firearm in California.