ALAMEDA, Calif. — An Alameda County Superior Court judge declined Wednesday to grant an exception to a firearm possession restriction imposed as a condition of pretrial diversion, despite arguments from the defense that the accused legally owned the weapon, was pursuing concealed carry training and carried the firearm out of concern for her personal safety.
Judge Cara Sandberg maintained the firearm restriction and a six-month gun safety course requirement, leaving the accused’s diversion status unresolved until a subsequent hearing.
The accused was charged July 15 with two misdemeanor counts involving possession of a concealed firearm and possession of a loaded firearm in a vehicle without a concealed carry weapon permit.
Deputy Public Defender Marlene Jobe petitioned the court for diversion, explaining that the accused was the lawful owner of the registered firearm recovered from the vehicle and was enrolled in concealed carry weapon training at the time of the alleged offenses.
Deputy District Attorney Esther Lemus opposed the diversion request, citing public safety concerns related to the firearm charges.
Sandberg offered diversion on the condition that the accused relinquish possession of her firearm and complete a six-month gun safety course.
Jobe requested that the court eliminate the mandatory gun safety course, arguing that the requirement could interfere with the accused’s educational and professional plans.
According to Jobe, the accused intended to attend nursing school and pursue a career as a registered nurse. The additional course requirement, Jobe argued, “could derail that.”
Jobe also explained that the accused was already enrolled in concealed carry weapon courses that included instruction on firearm safety procedures, making the additional training requirement unnecessary in the defense’s view.
Sandberg declined to remove the six-month gun safety course requirement and maintained the condition prohibiting firearm possession during the diversion period.
Jobe challenged the firearm restriction, explaining that the accused lived in an area where she feared for her safety and carried a firearm for personal protection.
The defense also raised concerns that participation in a gun safety course could require the accused to handle or present a firearm, potentially conflicting with the court’s prohibition on possession.
Jobe requested a limited exception that would allow the accused to possess a firearm when necessary to complete the required training.
Sandberg rejected the proposed exception, explaining that prohibiting firearm possession was a standard condition of diversion.
Although the court outlined the conditions under which diversion could proceed, the hearing concluded without a final resolution of the accused’s diversion request.
The accused is scheduled to return to Alameda County Superior Court on Dec. 9 at 9 a.m. for further consideration of the diversion conditions.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
