Juvenile Judge exceeded authority when he ordered a handgun ban on a kid whose wardship was not based on a statutorily enumerated crime whose violation triggers the ban.

In re J.C., 1^st Dist., Div.3 (02/06/2026)

Master J.C. was made a ward of the court based on his pleas to attempted grand theft and brandishing an imitation gun.  He was put on supervision with a term that he not own or possess a gun before he turned 30.  J.C. appealed, arguing the gun ban was unauthorized by law.

The appellate court agrees, and reverses.

The panel’s job here is straightforward.  Penal Code section 417.4(a)(1) enumerated crimes where a juvenile, if found a ward based upon, is prohibited from owning or possessing a gun until they turn 30.  The trial court, instead of starting with the language of the statute, ignores the text and substitutes its interpretation of the “legislature’s concerns,” resulting in a ruling the ban is applicable here.  The panel resets the issue, starts with the statute’s language (the first step in interpretating a statute) and finds it unambiguous.  It reverses and remands for the trial court to strike the ban.