You’re charged with illegally carrying a concealed weapon in California. What you need to get the blatantly unconstitutional case dismissed
Let me begin to say that I am not a lawyer, but I do have my many years of understanding the law when it comes to the second amendment of the United States Constitution. Will your trial judge have the balls to actually follow the constitution rather than cater to those leftist people who got him placed on the bench?
Should you find yourself arrested for carrying a concealed weapon in California, I promise you most lawyers don’t have a clue about the second amendment. They will walk you into a plea agreement most likely ending in your conviction of a misdemeanor. Here is a motion to dismiss that covers all the bases that would get you through the court. Not only would you file this but you’ll get a hearing and you’re going to have to argue this against an experienced prosecutor. Is it simple? I’m not going to suggest for a moment it is simple even for a lawyer. Here is the Motion:
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
The People of the State of California,
Plaintiff,
v.
Ted Savage,
Defendant.
Case No. [Insert Case Number]
MOTION TO DISMISS
COMES NOW the Defendant, Ted Savage, Pro Se, and respectfully moves this Court to dismiss the charges against him for carrying a firearm in an automobile pursuant to California Penal Code §25463, on the grounds that the statute and its application in this case violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. This motion is supported by the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
The Defendant, Ted Savage, was arrested and charged with carrying a firearm in an automobile following a routine traffic stop, during which he voluntarily cooperated with law enforcement. The Defendant asserts that his conduct falls within the core protections of the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022).
The statute under which the Defendant is charged impermissibly infringes upon the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” for self-defense, and further, its enforcement is barred by the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Accordingly, this Court must dismiss the charges.
II. ARGUMENT
A. The Supremacy Clause Requires Dismissal of the Charges
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution establishes that federal law is the “supreme Law of the Land,” and state laws in conflict with federal constitutional protections must yield. (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.) In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. (561 U.S. at 750.) State statutes or their application that conflict with these constitutional protections are invalid.
California Penal Code §25463, as applied to the Defendant, conflicts with federal constitutional protections under the Second Amendment and is therefore unenforceable.
B. California’s Statute Imposes an Unconstitutional Restriction on the Right to Bear Arms
The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
In Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess and carry firearms for self-defense. (554 U.S. at 595.) The Court emphasized that this right is “fundamental” and not limited to service in a militia. (Id. at 628.)
In Bruen, the Court established a framework for evaluating Second Amendment claims, holding that any restriction on the right to bear arms must be consistent with the “Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” (597 U.S. ___, slip op. at 15.) Restrictions lacking historical precedent are presumptively unconstitutional. (Id. at 25.)
California Penal Code §25463 criminalizes the act of carrying a firearm in an automobile without regard to whether the firearm is being carried for lawful purposes such as self-defense. This categorical prohibition lacks any historical precedent and fails under the Bruen standard.
C. The Defendant’s Conduct Is Protected by the Second Amendment
The Defendant’s act of carrying a firearm in his automobile falls squarely within the Second Amendment’s core protection of carrying arms for self-defense. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to bear arms includes carrying firearms in public for lawful purposes. (Heller, 554 U.S. at 628; Bruen, slip op. at 23.)
Absent a specific showing that the Defendant’s conduct posed a threat to public safety or was otherwise unlawful, the statute’s application in this case is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
D. The Statute Violates the Equal Protection Clause
In addition to infringing on the Second Amendment, the statute also raises concerns under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by disproportionately impacting law-abiding citizens who seek to exercise their constitutional rights.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Court dismiss the charges against him. California Penal Code §25463, as applied, violates the Second Amendment as interpreted by Heller, McDonald, and Bruen and is preempted by the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
DATED: [Insert Date]
Respectfully submitted,
[Name]
[Address]
[City, State, ZIP]
[Phone Number]
[Email Address]
Comments
1. The Principle: Constitutional Rights Cannot Be Conditioned on Fees
• In Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated poll taxes, holding that requiring payment to exercise a fundamental right—voting—violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Similarly, the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” is a fundamental right as recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and applied to the states in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).
• Conditioning the exercise of this fundamental right on the payment of a fee is analogous to the unconstitutional poll tax.
2. Historical Precedent: Supreme Court Rejects Pay-to-Exercise-Rights Schemes
• In Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), the Court struck down a licensing fee required for religious solicitation, holding that imposing a fee to engage in First Amendment-protected activity was unconstitutional.
• By analogy, requiring a fee to obtain a concealed carry permit violates the Second Amendment because it conditions the exercise of the right on the ability to pay.
3. California’s Concealed Weapon Fees Are a Barrier to Access
• California Penal Code §25463 and related statutes require individuals to pay fees for mandatory training, background checks, and application processing to obtain a concealed carry permit.
• These fees disproportionately impact individuals of lower income, effectively creating a system where economic status determines the ability to exercise a fundamental right, akin to how poll taxes disenfranchised lower-income voters.
4. “Chilling Effect” on a Constitutional Right
• In Bruen, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms for self-defense outside the home.
• Fees and financial barriers discourage individuals from exercising this right, creating a “chilling effect” similar to the poll tax’s deterrent effect on voting.
5. No Analogous Historical Tradition Supports the Fees
• In Bruen, the Court required that firearm regulations must be consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
• Historically, there is no evidence that individuals in the Founding Era were required to pay fees to exercise their right to bear arms. Therefore, California’s fee requirements fail the Bruen standard.
6. Unconstitutional for the Poor: Equal Protection Violation
• California’s fee-based concealed carry system creates unequal access to constitutional rights.
• In Harper, the Supreme Court emphasized that “wealth, like race, is not germane to one’s ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process.” Similarly, wealth is irrelevant to one’s ability to safely and lawfully carry a firearm for self-defense.
7. Alternative Mechanisms Exist That Do Not Impose Fees
• Background checks and safety training could be funded through general taxation rather than fees imposed on individuals, ensuring equitable access to the constitutional right to bear arms.
• The government cannot shift the cost of constitutional rights onto the individual without violating equal protection principles.
Conclusion:
California’s concealed weapon fee requirements are unconstitutional under the principles articulated in Harper, Murdock, and Bruen. Conditioning the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right on the payment of fees disproportionately burdens lower-income individuals, creates a chilling effect on the right, and is unsupported by historical tradition. These fees must be eliminated or replaced with alternative mechanisms to comply with constitutional standards.