{"id":264,"date":"2026-03-26T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-03-26T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=264"},"modified":"2026-03-26T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-03-26T12:00:00","slug":"in-re-e-j-section-29820-juvenile-firearm-prohibition-bruen-second-amendment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=264","title":{"rendered":"In re E.J. \u2014 Penal Code section 29820 firearm prohibition for juvenile offenders is facially constitutional under Bruen framework"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
In re E.J.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
4th District Court of Appeal<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-03-26<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
E085903<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Penal Code section 29820, juvenile firearm prohibition, Second Amendment, New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, facial challenge, due process, juvenile wardship<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

In 2018, E.J. was declared a ward of the juvenile court in San Bernardino County after admitting to assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm under Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1). Penal Code section 29820 prohibits a minor adjudged a ward of the juvenile court for certain offenses from possessing firearms until age 30. The prohibition is self-executing once the wardship and predicate offense are established and is reported to the Department of Justice.<\/p>\n

In 2019, the juvenile court reduced E.J.’s offense to a misdemeanor, terminated probation, discharged the wardship, and sealed the record. Despite the discharge, the section 29820 firearm prohibition remained in effect until age 30. In 2025, E.J. moved to terminate the firearm prohibition, arguing that the statute was facially unconstitutional. The juvenile court denied the motion, and E.J. appealed.<\/p>\n

On appeal, E.J. raised three constitutional arguments: (1) the statute violates the Second Amendment because it does not conform to the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation under the framework set by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, (2) the statute violates the Second Amendment by prohibiting firearm possession based on age as a proxy for dangerousness, and (3) the statute violates due process by failing to provide individualized assessment of dangerousness.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, affirmed. On the Second Amendment historical tradition argument, the court held that section 29820 fits within the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Legislatures have long had authority to disarm categories of individuals deemed dangerous based on prior conduct, including juvenile offenders adjudicated to have committed serious offenses. The Bruen framework does not require an exact historical analog; it is satisfied when the modern regulation is consistent with the historical tradition’s core principles.<\/p>\n

On the age-based prohibition argument, the court explained that section 29820 does not prohibit firearm possession based on age alone. The statute applies to persons who have been adjudicated wards of the juvenile court for specified serious offenses, and the until-age-30 limitation is a maturity-based ceiling, not a freestanding age-based ban. The Legislature’s choice to use age 30 as a temporal limit on the prohibition does not transform the statute into an age-based regulation that would require historical justification independent of the underlying offense conduct.<\/p>\n

On the due process argument, the court held that legislatures may make categorical determinations about dangerousness based on prior offense conduct without conducting an individualized risk assessment for each affected person. Federal courts have consistently upheld categorical disarming of felons and others under similar reasoning. The court also rejected E.J.’s as-applied challenge as forfeited because it was raised for the first time in the reply brief and was not raised at all in the juvenile court.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n