The Wire · CalGunHub

Appeals court upholds loaded-carry licensing rule, assault-weapon and magazine bans

Published January 13, 2026 · Updated October 12, 2026

The First District rejected facial Bruen challenges to Penal Code sections 25850(c)(6), 30605, and 32310.

Written by the CalGunHub desk from public reporting

Who this affects: The January 13, 2026 published opinion left three California statutes fully in effect: the loaded-carry licensing provision at Penal Code section 25850(c)(6), the assault-weapon possession ban at section 30605, and the large-capacity magazine ban at section 32310. The ruling addressed facial challenges only, meaning the court considered whether the laws are unconstitutional in all applications rather than as applied to particular circumstances. Nothing in the decision changed existing obligations for California firearm owners. This is general information, not legal advice.

A California Court of Appeal panel on January 13, 2026 rejected facial Second Amendment challenges to three of the state's firearm laws, upholding convictions in a published opinion in People v. McCowan, No. A167545.

The First District, Division One held that Penal Code section 25850(c)(6), which covers carrying a loaded, unregistered firearm in public, section 30605, covering assault-weapon possession, and section 32310, covering large-capacity magazine possession, are not unconstitutional on their face under the Supreme Court's Bruen framework, according to the California Courts opinion page and a summary by CCAP. The decision upheld California's firearm licensing scheme.

The panel found the defendant had failed to show that assault weapons are commonly used for lawful purposes or that large-capacity magazines are protected "arms" under the Second Amendment, citing the court's earlier decision in People v. Crenshaw and the Bocanegra precedent.

Update: On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, which take up the common-use question for AR-15-platform rifles. No California Supreme Court review of McCowan was found as of October 12, 2026.

The defendant had been convicted of carrying a loaded, unregistered firearm in public along with the possession counts. Because the challenges were facial, the panel asked whether the statutes are unconstitutional in every application, a demanding standard, and concluded they are not. The opinion adds to a growing body of published California appellate decisions applying Bruen to uphold the state's core firearm regulations, including the licensing framework that underpins section 25850.

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