The Wire · CalGunHub

Appeals court upholds California firearm ban for certain juvenile offenders

Published March 26, 2026 · Updated October 12, 2026

The Fourth District held Penal Code 29820, which bars some juvenile wards from possessing firearms until age 30, is facially valid under Bruen.

Written by the CalGunHub desk from public reporting

Who this affects: The March 26, 2026 decision left Penal Code section 29820 in effect. That statute bars people who were adjudged wards of the juvenile court for specified offenses from owning or possessing firearms until they turn 30. The court rejected only a facial constitutional challenge, and a separate as-applied argument was forfeited for procedural reasons, so the ruling does not resolve every possible challenge to the statute. It changes no existing obligations. This is general information, not legal advice.

A California Court of Appeal panel on March 26, 2026 upheld the state's law barring people adjudged juvenile wards for specified offenses from possessing firearms until age 30, rejecting a facial Second Amendment challenge in a published opinion, In re E.J., No. E085903.

The Fourth District, Division Two held that Penal Code section 29820 is facially valid under the Supreme Court's Bruen framework, reasoning along the same lines as decisions upholding felon-in-possession statutes. "PC 29820 is not facially unconstitutional under Bruen," according to a summary of the case by CCAP.

The defendant had also raised an as-applied challenge, but the panel concluded that argument was forfeited because it was not raised in the trial court or in the opening brief on appeal, according to the California Courts opinion page and the CCAP summary.

The opinion was filed as a published decision, meaning it can be cited as precedent by California courts.

The case reached the Fourth District after the defendant sought relief from the prohibition that followed a juvenile wardship adjudication for a qualifying offense. Under Bruen, the panel reasoned, legislatures may disarm categories of persons found to pose a danger, and juvenile wardship for specified offenses fits the historical pattern that has sustained felon-in-possession laws. Because the as-applied claim was forfeited, the opinion leaves open the possibility of a properly preserved challenge in a future case.

The decision adds to a run of published 2025 and 2026 California appellate opinions, including People v. Crenshaw and People v. McCowan, that have applied the Bruen framework to sustain state firearm restrictions against facial attacks.

Informational only, not legal advice. Facts are attributed to the sources listed above.