Does the Attorney General have any authority or authority to prohibit a person from carrying a concealed firearm?

The Attorney General fails to address defendant's argument that he did not inflict great bodily injury in the commission of the crime of possessing a weapon. The thrust of defendant's claim is that the mere possession of a weapon cannot cause an injury. To cause injury, he urges, the weapon must be used in some fashion. A case not cited by either party, People v. Arzate (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 390, supports defendant's contention. In that case, the defendant shot a deputy sheriff who had stopped him for speeding. He was convicted of attempted murder of a peace officer, assault with a firearm on a peace officer, and carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle. The jury also found, as to all counts, that the defendant used a firearm and inflicted great bodily injury. (Id. at p. 398.) The defendant argued the true findings of use of a firearm and infliction of great bodily injury as to the concealed firearm count had to be stricken. The appellate court agreed with the defendant, explaining that the offense of carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle was completed by the defendant's single passive act of having the weapon in the car. Thus, the "gun use and infliction of great bodily injury were not committed in the commission of the static offense of carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle." (Id. at p. 401.)