Someone says you pointed a gun at them in traffic. The other driver later admits they were not scared. Does that end the felony charge? On October 26, 2026, the California Supreme Court said no. In People v. Ball, the court held that brandishing a gun at a driver under Penal Code section 417.3 does not require proof that the driver actually felt afraid.
The test is whether the way the gun was shown would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily harm; what the real driver actually felt is not the deciding question.
What Penal Code 417.3 Says About Brandishing a Gun at a Driver
Section 417.3 is California’s law against showing a gun in a threatening way to someone in a car. As quoted by the court, it applies to every person who, “except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person who is an occupant of a motor vehicle proceeding on a public street or highway, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a threatening manner against another person in such a way as to cause a reasonable person apprehension or fear of bodily harm.” The statute calls this a felony.
A few parts of that sentence matter in almost every case:
- The person who sees the gun must be in a vehicle on a public street or highway.
- The gun can be loaded or unloaded.
- The gun must be drawn or shown in a threatening manner.
- The law does not apply to self-defense.
The Road Rage Case Behind the New Ruling
The facts come from the court’s opinion. In January 2020, an off-duty peace officer saw a driver speeding, tailgating, and cutting off other drivers on Oso Parkway in Mission Viejo. After the officer photographed the car and its license plate, the driver pulled up next to him at a stoplight, pointed a handgun in his direction, and then drove onto the freeway. A sheriff’s investigator later found a loaded handgun in the car and confirmed that both the car and the gun were registered to the driver.
After a preliminary hearing, the trial court dismissed the felony charge. The judge reasoned that the law required the person in the car to be in fear, and no one had offered evidence that the officer was afraid. The Court of Appeal reversed and put the charge back. The California Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal.
Why the Driver’s Actual Fear Does Not Decide the Case
The court started with the words of the statute. The law refers to a real “person” who is in the car and who sees the gun. But when it describes the effect of the threat, it switches to a “reasonable person,” which is an imaginary, ordinary person the law uses as a measuring stick.
So the question is whether “a reasonable person in a similar situation and with similar knowledge” would have felt fear. A calm, professionally trained, or unusually brave driver does not change that answer.
The court also pointed to how the Legislature writes laws when it does want proof of real fear. The criminal threats law, Penal Code section 422, requires that the threat caused the person “reasonably to be in sustained fear.” Under that law, the prosecution has to prove both that the person was actually afraid and that the fear was reasonable. Section 417.3 has no words like that.
What Lawmakers Were Trying to Stop
The defense argued that the law exists to keep scared drivers from driving wildly, so a driver who is not scared creates no danger. The court called that explanation of the law’s purpose incomplete.
Looking at the history of the 1987 bill, the court explained that showing a gun to a driver can cause anger or outrage, not just fear, and either one can lead to dangerous driving. A gun that comes out on the road also raises the chance that someone fires a shot, whether it is the person who showed the gun, an armed driver, or a bystander. The court noted that freeway shootings were part of the reason the law was passed.
What This Ruling Means if You Are Accused
This decision changes what the prosecution has to prove in a section 417.3 case. Here is what it means in practice:
- The other driver does not have to testify that they were scared.
- A witness who says they were not afraid does not, by itself, defeat the charge.
- The focus shifts to how the gun was shown and what an ordinary person in that spot would have felt.
- The other parts of the law still have to be proven, including that the person who saw the gun was in a vehicle on a public street or highway and that the gun was shown in a threatening manner.
The ruling came at an early stage of the case. The Supreme Court decided only that the evidence at the preliminary hearing was enough to hold the driver for trial on the felony charge. It did not decide whether he was guilty.
Fake Guns Are Covered by a Different Law
Showing an imitation firearm in a threatening way falls under a separate law, Penal Code section 417.4. As quoted by the court, that law calls the offense a misdemeanor. The court said the meaning of section 417.4 was not before it, so Ball does not decide how the fear question works for imitation guns.
Common Questions About Brandishing a Gun at a Driver
Does the gun have to be loaded?
No. Section 417.3 covers any firearm, “whether loaded or unloaded.”
Is brandishing at a driver the same as making a criminal threat?
No. They are separate crimes. A criminal threat under section 422 requires proof that the person was actually in sustained fear. Brandishing at a driver under section 417.3 only requires that a reasonable person would have felt fear.
What if I was defending myself?
The statute does not apply to a person who acts in self-defense. Whether self-defense applies depends on the facts, so anyone facing this charge should talk through their own situation with a lawyer.
Where can I read the decision?
The full opinion is People v. Ball, California Supreme Court case number S292969, filed October 26, 2026. You can read it on the California courts opinions page or on CourtListener.
For more on how criminal cases can turn on the evidence police collect, see our post on whether your phone being near a crime scene makes you a suspect. If you are unhappy with how your court-appointed lawyer is handling a case, our post on what to do if you do not like your public defender may help. You can also read about when prosecutors can challenge a judge who offers a sentence.
When to Call Mines Law Firm
We handle auto accident injury claims, and are accepting clients for those. If you are injured in an auto accident, that is when you should call us at 888-700-0093.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Responsible attorney: Jasmine Mines (State Bar No. 331135), Mines Law Firm, 468 N. Camden Drive, Suite 200, Beverly Hills, CA 90210.