The California Court of Appeal has upheld the denial of Derek Joseph Tristao's application for a concealed carry permit. This decision stems from a prior domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) issued against him, which was still within the five-year disqualification period mandated by state law. The ruling affects Tristao directly and serves as a precedent for similar cases involving individuals with past domestic violence restraining orders seeking firearm permits.

The case, filed under docket number F091003, highlights the legal complexities surrounding the issuance of concealed carry permits in California, particularly for individuals with a history of domestic violence. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory requirements when determining eligibility for firearm licenses.

Background

In the lead-up to this case, a domestic violence restraining order was issued against Tristao under California Family Code section 6300, et seq. This order was in effect until November 13, 2023. Following the expiration of the DVRO, Tristao applied for a concealed carry permit sometime between November 2023 and September 2025. His application was denied based on the stipulations of Penal Code section 26202, which classifies individuals with certain restraining orders as disqualified from receiving a concealed carry permit.

On September 22, 2025, Tristao filed a request for a hearing to challenge his status as a disqualified person under Penal Code section 26206 in the Merced County Superior Court. The court proceedings included a sealed report on Tristao's criminal history, his declarations, and testimony from a sheriff's deputy. Ultimately, the court ruled against Tristao, citing that the district attorney had met the burden of proof regarding his disqualification.

The Ruling

The California Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court acted correctly in denying Tristao's request to challenge his disqualified status. The court noted, “The District Attorney has met the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence in accordance with the strict interpretation of the law.” The judges on the panel included Acting Presiding Justice Meehan, Justice Snauffer, and Justice Harrell.

The court's opinion emphasized that Tristao failed to provide an adequate record on appeal, which is crucial for demonstrating any alleged errors made by the trial court. The judges pointed out that an appellant must show that the trial court's judgment was incorrect based on the record presented. In this case, the court found no evidence indicating that the DVRO was issued without proper notice or a hearing, which would have been necessary to overturn the disqualification.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for individuals with a history of domestic violence seeking concealed carry permits in California. It reinforces the legal framework that disqualifies individuals with recent restraining orders from obtaining firearm licenses. The decision also highlights the importance of providing a complete and adequate record when appealing a trial court's decision.

The court's opinion serves as a reminder to applicants that they bear the responsibility of proving any errors in the trial court's findings. This ruling could influence future cases involving similar circumstances, as it establishes a precedent for how courts may interpret the disqualification criteria under Penal Code section 26202.

What's Next

Tristao has the option to appeal the ruling, although the court's decision is likely to stand given the lack of sufficient evidence to support his claims. There are no related cases pending that would directly affect this ruling.