Victory for Second Amendment Rights in Alameda County: A Detailed Look at a Landmark CCW Challenge

In another victory for our constitutional rights, the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, located at the Hayward Hall of Justice, recently ruled in favor of John Doe in his challenge to the Livermore Police Department’s denial of his concealed carry weapon (CCW) license. This decision, issued on October 8, 2025, under Penal Code Section 26206, marks a significant victory for gun owners navigating California’s complex firearms regulations in the post-Bruen era.

The Broader Legal Context: From Bruen to California’s Shall-Issue Shift

To fully appreciate this ruling, it’s essential to understand the seismic shift in U.S. gun laws triggered by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court struck down New York’s “proper cause” requirement for concealed carry permits, holding that it violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments by preventing law-abiding citizens from exercising their right to bear arms in public for self-defense. The Court emphasized that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry firearms publicly for self-defense, and regulations must be consistent with historical traditions of firearm regulation.

In response, California transitioned from a “may-issue” system—where issuing authorities had broad discretion—to a “shall-issue” framework. As of June 23, 2022, following Bruen, licenses must be issued to qualified applicants unless specific disqualifying factors exist. However, the state enacted Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) in 2023, which updated CCW laws to include new requirements like background checks, training, and restrictions on carrying in “sensitive places” such as schools, government buildings, and parks. Despite this, issuing authorities in anti-rights jurisdictions are doing what they can to limit the amount of licenses issued, including abusing the objective standards requirements provided by SB 2.

Penal Code Section 26202 outlines disqualifying factors, such as a history of violence or mental health issues that pose a danger to self or others. Licensing agencies must conduct thorough investigations, including psychological assessments, but denials must be supported by a preponderance of evidence—a standard the court rigorously applied in this case.

The Case Timeline: John Doe’s Journey Through the System

John Doe’s saga began on November 4, 2024, when he submitted his initial application for a CCW license to the Livermore Police Department. Following standard procedure, he underwent fingerprinting and an interview in December 2024. On May 1, 2025, a psychological assessment was conducted, which ultimately played a pivotal role in the denial.

The department issued a denial letter on June 17, 2025, citing concerns from the assessment. Doe promptly filed a challenge under Penal Code Section 26206, and a hearing was held on October 1, 2025, before the Alameda County Superior Court. The People were represented by the District Attorney’s Office, with no criminal history report showing arrests or convictions for Doe.

Key facts from the case include:

• Omitted Incident: In his application, Doe did not disclose a 1998 incident from his college days involving an arrest for smoking marijuana. However, the court deemed this omission non-dispositive, as it was a minor, non-violent event from over two decades ago and did not indicate current danger.
• 2022 Safeway Parking Lot Incident: A 2022 altercation in a Safeway parking lot was scrutinized. Doe became agitated during a dispute over parking but de-escalated the situation himself. No arrests were made, and video evidence showed no violence. The court found this insufficient to prove disqualification, noting contradictory statements in the police report and the psychologist’s assessment.
• Psychological Assessment Details: The assessment flagged Doe as “quick to anger” based on vague “work comments” and a one-page screening summary. However, it contained competing findings: Doe failed for insufficient data in some areas but was deemed cooperative overall. The psychologist noted no “red flags” like yelling or threatening behavior during the evaluation. Critically, the assessment did not meet California’s standards under Penal Code Sections 26150, 26155, and 26170, lacking objective evidence of danger.

The court meticulously reviewed these elements, concluding there was no preponderance of evidence that Doe posed a risk to himself, others, or the community.

en.wikipedia.org

The Hayward Hall of Justice, where the ruling was issued.

The Court’s Key Findings and Order

In its detailed order, the court highlighted several deficiencies in the department’s process:

1. Insufficient Denial Letter: The June 17, 2025, letter failed to state reasons as required by Penal Code Section 26206(a), rendering it inadequate.
2. Non-Dispositive Omission: The 1998 incident did not warrant denial, as it was unrelated to current fitness.
3. Flawed Psychological Assessment: Containing contradictory findings and insufficient data, it did not support a disqualification determination.
4. Lack of Preponderance: Overall, the evidence did not prove Doe was a “danger to self, others, or the community” under Section 26202.

As a result, the court ordered that John Doe is not a disqualified person and directed the Livermore Police Department to issue a notice allowing him to complete the required training and proceed with licensure.

This ruling underscores the importance of objective standards in CCW evaluations, aligning with Bruen’s mandate that restrictions must not unduly burden law-abiding citizens.

The Role of Jason Davis and The Davis Law Firm

This victory was spearheaded by Jason Davis, a seasoned attorney with over 32 years in California’s firearms industry. Before entering law, Davis worked as a representative for major firearms manufacturers, giving him unparalleled insight into the regulatory landscape. As the founder of The Davis Law Firm, based in Mission Viejo, he specializes in firearm-related legal matters, including CCW challenges, possession issues, and compliance consultations.

The firm has earned praise for its expertise, with clients noting Davis’s deep knowledge of California gun laws and responsive service. In this case, Davis’s advocacy exposed procedural flaws and ensured the court focused on facts over speculation, ultimately overturning the denial.

Implications for Gun Owners in California

This case highlights ongoing challenges in California’s CCW system. Despite Bruen, denials and delays persist— for instance, between January 2024 and March 2025, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department processed only a fraction of its 3,982 applications promptly. Such rulings could encourage more challenges, reinforcing that denials must be evidence-based.

For gun owners, it serves as a reminder that rights protected by the Second Amendment extend to public carry, provided applicants meet objective criteria.

Call to Action: Don’t Let a Denial Stand in Your Way

If you’ve been denied a CCW license in California—or face other firearm-related legal hurdles—don’t give up. Contact The Davis Law Firm today at (866) 545-GUNS or visit calgunlawyers.com for a consultation. With specialists like Jason Davis on your side, you can navigate the complexities of state laws and fight for your rights.

Congratulations to the Court

A heartfelt congratulations to the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda for demonstrating the utmost respect for the law, the facts, and justice during the October 1, 2025, hearing and in its subsequent opinion. By prioritizing evidence over assumption, this decision upholds constitutional principles and ensures fair application of the law for all. 🇺🇸 #2A #GunRights #CaliforniaLaw #BruenVictory