Braman

Braman v. State of California

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 923·28 Cal. App. 4th 344·33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 608·94 Daily Journal DAR 13061·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7146
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 15, 1994A059240California5,230 words

Opinion

Opinion

Poche, J.

Penal Code section 12076, a part of the Dangerous Weapons’ Control Law (Pen. Code, § 12000 et seq.), governs the scope of the investigation to be made by the Department of Justice for the purpose of determining whether an individual is disqualified from obtaining possession of a firearm by sale or otherwise. In 1989 the Court of Appeal in Gray v. State of California (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 151 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 581 ] held that section 12076 did not establish a mandatory duty the violation of which would support a private action for damages under the California Tort Claims Act. (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.) Today we hold that amendments to section 12076 and other statutes enacted a year later in response to Gray do create such a mandatory duty. We also hold that those amendments expand the scope of the Dangerous Weapons’ Control Law to guard against self-inflicted injuries. In light of these holdings we conclude that a complaint alleging that the failure of the Department of Justice to conduct the investigation specified by Penal Code section 12076 and thus to prevent acquisition of a firearm by a former mental patient who then commits suicide with that weapon, states a cause of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.