Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
COpyNo. 11-290
3iii tI’Tr ‘uprim 1nurt uf t1 1Inftii ‘ta±i
RICK CHARLES DELACY, Petitioner,
V.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,Respondent.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL
I, Laurence K. Sullivan, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, a member ofthe Bar of this Court hereby certify that on December 15, 2011, three copies of theBRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI in theabove-entitled case were mailed, first class postage prepaid to:
C. D. MichelAttorney at Law -
Michel & Associates P.C.180 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 200Long Beach CA 90802-4079(562) 216-4464
I further certify that all parties required to be served have been served.
LAURENCE K. SULLIVA}, Supervising DepiityAttorney GeneralOffice of the Attorney General455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000San Francisco, CA 94102-7004Telephone: (415) 703-5849Counsel for Respondent
SF201120270540496954.doc
cxwyNo. 11-290
3m tJt nprirnw (nurt uf fli 1ftnitr ‘tat
RICK CHARLES DELACY, Petitioner,
V.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,Respondent.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the Petitionfor Writ of Certiorari contains 5,531 words, excluding the parts of thedocument that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: December 14, 2011Respectfully submitted,
KAMALA D. HARRISAttorn y General of Ca ifornia
/LAURENCE K. SULLIVANSupervising Deputy AttorneyGeneral
Counsel of RecordCounsel for Respondent
SF201120270540496966.cloc
No. 11-290
3m tt uprmi (ttiurt ut tIp tut’ tat
RICK CHARLES DELACY, Petition,er,
V.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THECALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONFOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
KAMALAD. HARRISAttorney General of CaliforniaDANE R. GILLETTEChiefAssistant Attorney GeneralGERuo A. ENGLERSenior Assistant Attorney GeneralSETH K SCHAIJTSupervising Deputy Attorney GeneralLAURENCE K SULLWANSupervising Deputy Attorney GeneralCounsel of Record
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000San Francisco, CA 94102-7004Telephone: (415) 703-5849Fax: (415) [email protected]
Counsel for Respondent
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether California Penal Code section12021(c)(1), which prohibits ownership, possession,or control of a firearm for ten years after conviction ofan enumerated misdemeanor, is unconstitutionalunder the Second Amendment as applied in this case.
2. Whether heightened scrutiny under theFourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clauseapplies and renders invalid California Penal Codesection 12021(c) (1)’s nonrestriction of persons withsimilar misdemeanors from other jurisdictions.
nil
l
TA
BL
EO
FC
ON
TE
NT
ST
AB
LE
OF
AU
TH
OR
ITIE
S
Pag
eP
age
Sta
tem
ent
1
CA
SES
Cou
nty
ofA
lleg
heny
v.A
mer
ican
Civ
ilL
iber
ties
Uni
on,
Gre
ater
Pit
tsb
urg
hC
hapt
er49
2U.S
.57
3(1
989)
12D
eV
eau
v.B
rais
ted
363
U.S
.14
4(1
960)
14D
istr
ict
ofC
olum
bia
v.H
elle
r55
4U
.S.
570
(200
8)pas
sim
Eng
quis
tv.
Ore
gon
Dep
t.of
Agr
icul
ture
553
U.S
.59
1(2
008)
2,3
Gon
zale
sv.
Car
har
t55
0U
.S.
124
(200
7)13
Haw
ker
v.N
ewY
ork
170U
.S.
189
(189
8)14
Inre
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
578
F.3
d11
95(1
0th
Cir
.20
09)
13L
ewis
v.U
nite
dS
tate
s44
5U
.S.
55(1
980)
pass
imL
ogan
v.U
nite
dS
tate
s55
2U
.S.
23(2
007)
9M
cDon
ald
v.C
ityof
Chi
cago
561
U.S
.—
,13
0S.
Ct.
3020
,17
7L
.E
d.2d
894
(201
0)2,
15P
eopl
ev.
Del
acy
192
Cal
.A
pp.
4th
1481
,12
2C
al.
Rpt
r.3d
216
(200
8)8,
10P
eopl
ev.
Flo
res
169
Cal
.A
pp.
4th
568,
86C
al.
Rpt
r.3d
804
(200
8)5,
7
Rea
sons
why
the
pet
itio
nsh
ould
bede
nied
10
I.N
osu
bst
anti
alqu
esti
onex
ists
that
the
Sec
ond
Am
endm
ent
per
mit
sa
batt
erer
’ste
mpora
ryd
isar
min
g11
II.
The
equa
lpr
otec
tion
hold
ing
belo
wis
not
inco
nfli
ctw
ith
Hel
ter
and
pre
sents
nosu
bst
anti
alis
sue
for
revi
ew18
Con
clus
ion
21
ivV
TA
BL
EO
FA
UT
HO
RIT
IES
(conti
nued
)P
age
Peo
ple
v.V
illa
178
Cal
.A
pp.
4th
443,
100
Cal
.R
ptr.
3d
463
(200
9)R
icha
rdso
nv.
Rai
nire
z4
18
U.S
.24
(197
4)14
Sem
inol
eT
ribe
ofF
la.
v.F
lori
da
51
7U
.S.4
4(1
996)
12
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
v.B
ooke
r64
4F
.3d
12(1
stC
ir.
2011
)13
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
v.C
hest
er62
8F
.3d
673
(4th
Cir
.20
10)
13
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
v.M
oore
543
F.3
d89
1(7
thC
ir.
2008
)9
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
v.S
koie
n61
4F
.3d
638
(7th
Cir
.20
10)
(en
bane
),ce
rt.
deni
ed,
131
S.C
t.16
74(2
011)
13
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
v.S
tate
n—
F.3
d—
,20
11W
L60
1697
6(4
thC
ir.
2011
)13
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
v.V
ongx
ay59
4F
.3d
1111
(9th
Cir
.20
10)
8
STA
TU
TE
S
18U
.S.C
.§9
21(a
)(20
)(B
)
§92
1(a)
(33)
(A)
10
§92
1(a)
(33)
(B)(
ii)
§922
(g)(
9)10,1
4
§31
42(c
)(1)
(B)(
Viii
)18
TA
BL
EO
FA
UT
HO
RIT
IES
(co
nti
nu
ed)
Pag
e
Cal
ifor
nia
Pen
alC
ode
§242
3§
496(
a)4
§12
021(
a)14
§12
021(
c)(1
)pa
ssim
§12
021(
c)(2
)an
d(3
)6
§12
021(
d)(1
)6
§12
021(
d)(2
)6
§12
021(
e)5
§12
021(
h)(1
)(A
)-(D
)6
§12
022.
1(b)
4§
1231
6(b)
(1)
4
CO
NS
TIT
UT
ION
AL
PR
OV
ISIO
NS
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
Con
stit
utio
nS
econ
dA
men
dmen
tpa
ssim
Fif
thA
men
dmen
t17
,18
Fourt
eenth
Am
endm
ent
2,7,
8,13
OT
HE
RA
UT
HO
RIT
IES
Chu
rchi
ll,
Gun
Reg
ulat
ion,
the
Pol
ice
Pow
er,
and
the
Rig
htto
Kee
pA
rms
inE
arly
Am
eric
a,25
Law
&H
ist.
Rev
.13
9(2
007)
15G
lenn
Har
lan
Rey
nold
s,A
Cri
tica
lG
uide
toth
eS
econ
dA
men
dmen
t,62
Ten
n.L
.R
ev.
461
(199
5)15
Om
nibu
sC
rim
eC
ontr
olan
dS
afe
Str
eets
Act
of19
6814
12
ST
AT
EM
EN
T
Pet
itio
ner
was
char
ged
wit
hfe
lony
poss
essi
onof
fire
arm
sw
ithin
ten
year
sof
aco
nvic
tion
for
an
enum
erat
edm
isde
mea
nor,
un
der
Cal
ifor
nia
Pen
al
Cod
ese
ctio
n12
021(
c)(1
).P
etit
ion
erm
oved
todi
smis
s
the
char
ges
under
the
Sec
ond
Am
endm
ent.
The
tria
l
cour
tru
led
that
the
stat
ute
con
stit
uti
on
ally
proh
ibit
edhi
sgu
npo
sses
sion
base
don
a20
06
conv
icti
onof
mis
dem
eano
rb
atte
ry.
Pet
itio
ner
wai
ved
aju
rytr
ial
and
test
ifie
dth
ataf
ter
hesp
oke
toth
e
judg
ew
hogra
nte
dhi
mp
rob
atio
nin
the
bat
tery
case
,
heth
ought
his
guns
,w
hich
wer
ese
ized
from
his
hom
ein
apr
obat
ion
sear
ch,
wer
eal
low
edd
uri
ng
hunti
ng
seas
on.
Pet
itio
ner
was
conv
icte
dan
d
gra
nte
dpr
obat
ion
agai
n.P
et.
App
.2a
-4a.
The
Cal
ifor
nia
Cou
rtof
App
eal
affi
rmed
the
judg
men
t.
Pet
.A
pp.
40a,
The
Cal
ifor
nia
Sup
rem
eC
ourt
deni
ed
revi
ew.
Pet
.A
pp.
55a.
1.T
heS
eáon
dA
men
dmen
tpr
ovid
es:
“Aw
ell
regula
ted
Mil
itia
,be
ing
nece
ssar
yto
the
secu
rity
ofa
free
Sta
te,
the
right
ofth
epe
ople
toke
epan
dbea
r
Arm
s,sh
all
not
bein
frin
ged.
”U
.S.
Con
st.
amen
d.II
.
Dis
tric
tof
Col
umbi
av.
Hel
ler,
554
U.S
.57
0(2
008)
,
held
that
the
Am
endm
ent
conf
ers
on“l
aw-a
bidi
ng,
resp
onsi
ble.
citi
zens
”an
indi
vidu
alri
ght
“to
use
arm
s
inde
fens
eof
hea
rth
and
hom
e.”
Id.
at63
5.T
he
Cou
rtst
ated
that
the
rig
ht
“is
not
unli
mit
ed”
and
hist
oric
ally
was
not
cons
ider
ed“a
right
toke
epan
d
carr
yan
yw
eapo
nw
hats
oeve
rin
any
man
ner
wha
tsoe
ver
and
for
wh
atev
erpu
rpos
e.”
Id.
at62
6.
The
Cou
rtid
enti
fied
seve
ral
“exc
epti
ons,
”w
hich
it
char
acte
rize
das
“per
mis
sibl
e”“r
egul
atio
nsof
the
righ
t[.j
”Id
.at
635.
Itsa
id:
“Alt
houg
hw
edo
not
under
take
anex
haus
tive
his
tori
cal
anal
ysis
toda
yof
the
full
scop
eof
the
Sec
ond
Am
endm
ent,
noth
ing
in
our
opin
ion
shou
ldbe
taken
toca
stdo
ubt
onth
e
long
stan
ding
proh
ibit
ions
onth
epo
sses
sion
offi
rear
ms
byfe
lons
and
the
men
tall
yill
,or
law
sfo
rbid
ding
the
carr
ying
offi
rear
ms
inse
nsit
ive
plac
essu
chas
scho
ols
and
gove
rnm
ent
buil
ding
s,or
law
sim
posi
ngco
ndit
ions
and
qual
ific
atio
nson
the
com
mer
cial
sale
ofar
ms.
”Id
.at
626-
27.
See
also
McD
onal
dv.
City
ofC
hica
go,
561
U.S
.,
130
S.C
t.30
20,
3047
,17
7L
.E
d.2d
894
(201
0)(p
lura
lity
opin
ion
ofA
uto,
J.)
(“re
peat
[ing
]th
[ese
]as
sura
nces
”in
conc
ludi
ngth
atth
eri
gh
tto
keep
and
bea
rar
ms
isbi
ndin
gup
onth
eS
tate
sth
rou
gh
the
Fo
urt
een
thA
men
dmen
t).
The
Cou
rtca
utio
ned
that
“[w
jeid
enti
fyth
ese
pres
umpt
ivel
yla
wfu
lre
gula
tory
mea
sure
son
lyas
exam
ples
;ou
rli
stdo
esno
tpurp
ort
tobe
exha
usti
ve.”
Hel
ler,
554
U.S
.at
627
n.26
.H
elle
rst
ruck
dow
nD
istr
ict
ofC
olum
bia
ordi
nanc
esth
atpr
ohib
ited
any
han
dg
un
inth
eho
me
and
req
uir
edth
atan
yfi
rear
min
aho
me
beke
ptun
load
edan
din
oper
able
.Id
.at
628-
30,
634-
35.
The
Cou
rt“d
ecli
n[ed
]to
esta
bli
sha
leve
lof
scru
tiny
for
eval
uat
ing
Sec
ond
Am
endm
ent
rest
rict
ions
,”id
.at
634,
expl
aini
ngth
at“[
u]nd
eran
yof
the
stan
dar
ds
ofsc
ruti
nyth
atw
eha
veap
plie
dto
enu
mer
ated
const
ituti
onal
righ
ts,”
the
Dis
tric
tof
Col
umbi
a’s
han
dgun
ban
“wou
ldfa
ilco
nst
ituti
onal
mus
ter,
”as
did
its
ban
onop
erab
lefi
rear
ms
even
for
hom
ede
fens
e.Id
,at
628-
30&
n.28
.T
heC
ourt
reje
cted
rati
onal
-bas
issc
ruti
ny,
whi
chth
eh
and
gu
nor
dina
nce
wou
ldpa
ss,
stat
ing
that
rati
on
alit
yre
view
,li
keth
atin
Eng
quis
tv.
Ore
gon
Dep
t.of
Agr
icul
ture
,55
3U
.s.
591,
603
(200
8)(u
nder
the
Equal
Pro
tect
ion
Cla
use)
,“c
ould
not
beus
edto
eval
uat
eth
eex
ten
tto
whi
cha
legis
latu
rem
ayre
gu
late
asp
ecif
ic,
enu
mer
ated
righ
t,”
else
“the
Sec
ond
Am
endm
ent
wou
ldbe
redundan
tw
ith
the
sep
arat
eco
nst
ituti
onal
proh
ibit
ions
onir
rati
onal
law
s,an
dw
ould
have
noef
fect
.”Id
.at
628
n.27
.T
heC
ourt
also
reje
cted
an
34
“int
eres
t-ba
lanc
ing”
test
prop
osed
byJu
stic
eB
reye
rin
diss
ent.
Id.
at63
4-35
;se
eid
.at
688-
91(B
reye
r,J.
diss
enti
ng).
The
Cou
rtdi
rect
edth
eD
istr
ict
tore
gis
ter
Hel
ler’
shan
dgun
and
lice
nse
him
toca
rry
itin
the
hom
e—”[
a]ss
umin
gth
at[h
e]is
not
disq
uali
fied
from
the
exer
cise
ofS
econ
dA
men
dmen
tri
gh
ts.
..
Id.
at63
5.2.
Cal
ifor
nia
Pen
alC
ode
sect
ion
242
read
s:“B
atte
ryde
fine
d.A
bat
tery
isan
yw
illf
ulan
d
unla
wfu
lus
eof
forc
eor
viol
ence
upon
the
pers
onof
anot
her.
”In
2006
,th
eC
alif
orni
aS
uper
ior
Cou
rtco
nvic
ted
pet
itio
ner
ofm
isde
mea
nor
bat
tery
and
plac
edhi
mon
prob
atio
n..
Pet
.A
pp.
25a.
3.In
Apr
il20
08,
offi
cers
cond
ucte
da
prob
atio
nse
arch
ofde
fend
ant’
sho
me.
Pet
.A
pp.
3a.
The
y
foun
dfo
urfi
rear
ms:
aR
emin
gton
700,
aW
inch
este
rV
100,
aB
enel
liB
lack
Eag
le,
and
aS
avag
eA
rms
110.
Ibid
.A
tth
eti
me
ofth
ese
arch
,p
etit
ion
erto
ldth
e
offi
cers
,“T
here
ain’
tno
thin
gw
rong
wit
hm
eha
ving
guns
.”Ib
id.
Bas
edon
his
bat
tery
conv
icti
on,
pet
itio
ner
was
char
ged,
byin
form
atio
n,w
ith
four
felo
nyco
unts
of
owni
ng,
poss
essi
ng,
and
havi
ngcu
stod
yof
afi
rear
m,
wit
hin
ten
year
sof
anen
um
erat
edm
isde
mea
nor
conv
icti
on,
avi
olat
ion
ofC
alif
orni
aP
enal
Cod
e
sect
ion
1202
1(c)
(1).
Pet
.A
pp.
2a.’
1S
ecti
on12
021
rest
rict
sfi
rear
mpo
sses
sion
bysp
ecif
ied
cate
gori
esof
pers
ons,
incl
udin
gfe
lons
and
cert
ain
mis
dem
eanan
ts.(
1202
1,su
bds.
(a),
(c).)
Wit
hex
cept
ions
not
rele
van
the
re,
sect
ion
1202
1,su
bdiv
isio
n(c
)(1)
prov
ides
“any
pers
onw
ho
has
been
conv
icte
dof
am
isde
mea
nor
viol
atio
nof
Sec
tion
71,
76,
136.
1,13
6.5,
or14
0,su
bdiv
isio
n(d
)
ofS
ecti
on14
8,S
ecti
on17
1b,
par
agra
ph
(1)
of
subd
ivis
ion
(a)
of17
1c,
171d
,18
6.28
,24
0,24
1,24
2,
243,
243.
4,24
4.5,
245,
245.
5,24
6.3,
247,
273.
5,
273.
6,41
7,41
7.6,
422,
626.
9,64
6.9,
1202
3,or
(con
tinu
ed...
)
4.T
hefi
rear
ms
case
was
pend
ing
inO
ctob
er20
08w
hen
ano
ther
prob
atio
nse
arch
ofpe
titi
oner
’sho
me
reve
aled
shot
gun
shel
lsin
aca
mou
flag
eba
gin
his
bedr
oom
clos
etan
din
stor
age
tubs
inth
ega
rage
,P
et.
App
.3a
-4a,
asw
ell
asst
olen
prop
erty
.P
etit
ion
erto
ldth
eof
fice
rsth
esh
ells
wer
efo
rhu
ntin
g.P
et.
App
.4a
.A
noth
erin
form
atio
nch
arge
dhi
mw
ith
felo
nypo
sses
sion
ofam
munit
ion
bya
pers
onpr
ohib
ited
from
poss
essi
ngfi
rear
ms
(Cal
.P
enal
Cod
e§
1231
6(b)
(1))
,en
hanc
edby
anal
lega
tion
that
hew
asre
leas
edin
the
fire
arm
sca
seat
the
tim
e(C
al.
Pen
alC
ode
§12
022.
1(b)
),an
dw
ith
rece
ivin
gst
olen
prop
erty
(Cal
.P
enal
Cod
e§
496(
a)).
Pet
.A
pp.
3a-4
a. At
aju
rytr
ial
onth
atin
form
atio
n,pet
itio
ner
test
ifie
dth
athe
was
anav
idhunte
rw
hoty
pica
lly
kept
1,00
0ro
unds
ofam
mun
itio
non
hand
,th
athe
had
plea
ded
noco
ntes
tto
bat
tery
in20
06,
and
that
the
guns
seiz
edin
the
Apr
il20
08se
arch
wer
e
(...c
onti
nued
)12
024,
subd
ivis
ion
(b)
or(d
)of
Sec
tion
1203
4,S
ecti
on12
040,
subd
ivis
ion
(b)
ofS
ecti
on12
072,
subd
ivis
ion
(a)
offo
rmer
Sec
tion
1210
0,S
ecti
on12
220,
1232
0,or
1259
0,or
Sec
tion
8100
,81
01,
or81
03of
the
Wel
fare
and
Inst
ituti
ons
Cod
e,an
yfi
rear
m-r
elat
edof
fens
epurs
uan
tto
Sec
tion
s87
1.5
and
1001
.5of
the
Wel
fare
and
Inst
itu
tio
ns
Cod
e,or
ofth
eco
nduc
tpunis
hed
inp
arag
rap
h(3
)of
subd
ivis
ion
(g)
ofS
ecti
on12
072,
and
who
,w
ithin
10ye
ars
ofth
oco
nvic
tion
,ow
ns,
purc
hase
s,re
ceiv
es,
orhas
inhi
sor
her
poss
essi
onor
under
his
orh
ercu
stod
yor
cont
rol,
any
fire
arm
isgu
ilty
ofa
publ
icof
fens
e,w
hich
shal
lbe
punis
hab
leby
impri
sonm
ent
ina
coun
tyja
ilno
tex
ceed
ing
one
yea
ror
inth
est
ate
pris
on,
bya
fine
not
exce
edin
gon
eth
ousa
nd
doll
ars
($1,
000)
,or
bybo
thth
atim
pri
sonm
ent
and
fine
..
.
Pet
.A
pp.
2a-3
an.
2.
5
regi
ster
ed.
Pet
.A
pp.
25a-
26a.
The
jury
conv
icte
dp
etit
ion
erof
the
amm
un
itio
nch
arge
and
foun
dth
een
han
cem
ent
true
;it
acqu
itte
don
the
stol
enp
rop
erty
char
ge.
Pet
.A
pp.
4a.
15.S
ubse
quen
tly,
inM
arch
2009
,pet
itio
ner
mov
edto
dism
iss
the
fire
arm
sca
se,
citi
ngH
elle
r.P
et.
App
.4a
.H
ear
gued
his
mis
dem
eano
rbat
tery
conv
icti
onu
nco
nst
itu
tio
nal
lydi
squa
lifi
edhi
mfr
omth
eS
econ
dA
men
dmen
tri
gh
tto
keep
arm
s.P
et.
App
.4a
,14
an.
8.T
heco
urt
deni
edth
em
otio
nu
nd
erP
eopl
ev.
Flo
res,
169
Cal
.A
pp.
4th
568,
86C
al.
Rpt
r.3d
804
(200
8)(F
lore
s).
Pet
.A
pp.
4a.
InF
lore
s,th
eco
urt
obse
rved
that
the
broa
dgu
nban
inH
elle
ris
far
rem
oved
from
mis
dem
ean
ant
proh
ibit
ions
aim
edat
spec
ific
type
sof
crim
es,
and
note
dth
atno
nvio
lent
felo
nies
com
ew
ith
inH
elle
r’s
list
ofex
cept
ions
toth
eri
ght
tobea
rar
ms.
Flo
res
foun
dno
prin
cipl
edar
gum
ent
for
stri
kin
gse
ctio
n12
021(
c)(1
)’s
rest
rict
ion
ongu
nsba
sed
onth
een
um
erat
edm
isde
mea
nors
,w
hich
“dis
arm
spe
rson
sw
hoha
vepr
oven
unab
leto
cont
rol
viol
ent
crim
inal
impu
lses
.”Id
.at
574-
75;
see
also
Peo
ple
v.V
illa
,17
8C
al.
App
.4th
443,
448-
49,
100
Cal
,R
ptr.
3d46
3(2
009)
(fol
low
ing
Flo
res
toup
hold
Cal
.P
enal
Cod
e§
1202
1(e)
,w
hich
ban
sgu
npo
sses
sion
,unti
lag
e30
,by
pers
ons
wit
hju
veni
lead
judi
cati
ons
for
offe
nses
list
edin
§12
021(
c)(1
)).
6.A
ta
benc
htr
ial,
pet
itio
ner
test
ifie
dth
athe
disc
usse
dhi
sgu
nsw
ith
the
judg
ew
hogra
nte
dhi
mpr
obat
ion
inth
e20
06b
atte
ryca
sean
dth
athe
unde
rsto
odfr
oma
“sti
pula
tion
”th
athi
sgu
nri
ght
was
rest
rict
edto
hu
nti
ng
seas
on.
Pet
.A
pp.
26a
n.15
.N
ost
ipul
atio
n,pr
obat
ion
cond
itio
nco
ntai
ning
agu
nre
stri
ctio
n,or
tran
scri
pt
ofth
e20
06pr
ocee
ding
sis
in
6
the
reco
rd.
Pet
.A
pp.
22a
n.11
,26
an.
15,
45
a.
2F
indi
nghi
sm
ista
keof
law
node
fens
e,th
eco
urt
conv
icte
dp
etit
ion
eras
char
ged.
See
Pet
.A
pp.
4a.
7.T
heco
urt
gra
nte
dp
etit
ion
erth
ree
year
s’pr
obat
ion
inbo
thth
efi
rear
ms
and
amm
unit
ion
case
s.P
etA
pp.
4a.
The
cour
tde
cide
dto
prov
ide
pet
itio
ner
anop
port
unit
y“o
nela
stti
me”
toli
ve“i
na
law
-abi
ding
way
”de
spit
epe
titi
oner
’s“m
ini-
crim
esp
ree”
inre
cent
year
s.P
et.
App
.40
a.8.
The
Cal
ifor
nia
Cou
rtof
App
eal
affi
rmed
.P
et.
App
.40
a.T
hepu
blis
hed
par
tof
the
opin
ion
held
sect
ion
1202
1(c)
(1)’
sgu
nre
stri
ctio
non
mis
dem
eano
rb
atte
rers
conf
orm
sto
the
Sec
ond
Am
endm
ent,
and
that
its
nonre
stri
ctio
nof
pers
ons
wit
hsi
mil
arm
isde
mea
nors
from
othe
rju
risd
icti
ons
does
not
viol
ate
the
Equ
alP
rote
ctio
nC
laus
e.P
et.
App
.4a
-2
4a.
3
2P
etit
ioner
did
not
test
ify
the
judg
eto
ldhi
mth
efi
rear
man
dam
mun
itio
nst
atute
sdi
dno
tap
ply
tohi
mor
wer
esu
spen
ded.
Pet
.A
pp.
32a
n.16
.B
yst
atu
te,
noti
ceof
afi
rear
ms
rest
rict
ion
ispr
ovid
edad
min
istr
ativ
ely,
bu
tom
itte
dno
tice
isno
ta
defe
nse
toa
subse
quen
tgu
nvi
olat
ion.
See
Cal
.P
enal
Cod
e§
1202
1(d)
(2).
Pet
itio
ner
did
not
asse
rthe
was
subj
ect
toa
prob
atio
ngu
nre
stri
ctio
nfo
ra
nonen
um
erat
edm
isde
mea
nor,
the
viol
atio
nof
whi
chis
am
isde
mea
nor,
not
afe
lony
.S
eeC
al.
Pen
alC
ode
§12
021(
d)(1
).P
etit
ioner
also
did
not
clai
mth
est
atu
tory
gun
rest
rict
ion
onhi
sb
atte
ryco
nvic
tion
was
subj
ect
toju
dici
alov
erri
depr
ovis
ions
.S
eeC
al.
Pen
alC
ode
§12
021(
c)(2
)&
(3)
(aut
hori
zing
disc
reti
onar
yju
dici
alov
erri
defo
rce
rtai
npr
edic
ate
mis
dem
eano
rsdi
squa
lify
ing
peac
eof
fice
rsfr
omem
ploy
men
tan
dfo
rpr
edic
ate
mis
dem
eano
rsad
ded
toth
ere
stri
cted
clas
saf
ter
conv
icti
on).
Pet
itio
ner
asse
rted
nost
atu
tory
exem
ptio
nsfo
rh
i8gu
ns—
i.e.,
foun
dpr
oper
ty,
disa
rmin
gof
one
com
mit
ting
acr
ime
agai
nst
the
poss
esso
r,an
d/or
tran
sito
rypo
sses
sion
for
disp
osit
ion
bya
law
enfo
rcem
ent
agen
cy.
Sec
Cal
.P
enal
Cod
e§
1202
1(h)
(1)(
A)-
(D).
aP
etit
ioner
did
not
rais
eth
eeq
ual
prot
ecti
oncl
aim
in(c
onti
nued
...)
78
a.A
sto
the
Sec
ond
Am
endm
ent
clai
m,
pet
itio
ner
“mad
eno
show
ing
asto
the
nat
ure
orm
agn
itu
de
ofth
efo
rce
heus
edin
conn
ecti
onw
ith
his
pred
icat
eof
fens
e.”
Pet
.A
pp.
14a
n.7.
He
did
not
asse
rtth
atse
ctio
n12
021(
c)(1
)is
faci
ally
inva
lid
orth
atit
“can
not
cons
titu
tion
ally
beap
plie
dto
ape
rson
conv
icte
dof
avi
olen
tm
isde
mea
nor,
such
asth
ede
fend
ant
inF
lore
s”;
rath
er,
hecl
aim
edon
lyth
atth
est
atute
“can
not
cons
titu
tion
ally
beap
plie
dto
any
pers
onco
nvic
ted
ofa
nonv
iole
ntm
isde
mea
nor.
”Id
.at
n.8.
Rec
ogni
zing
McD
onal
d’s
inco
rpor
atio
nof
the
Sec
ond
Am
endm
ent
thro
ug
hth
eF
ourt
eenth
Am
endm
ent,
the
stat
eco
urt
foun
dtr
adit
ional
lim
itat
ions
onth
eri
ght
tob
ear
arm
sre
affi
rmed
inH
elte
r,P
et.
App
.5a
(quo
ting
Hel
ter,
524
U.S
.at
626)
.C
itin
gbo
thC
alif
orni
aan
dfe
dera
lde
cisi
ons,
the
cour
tre
ject
edpe
titi
oner
’sde
man
dfo
rst
rict
scru
tiny
ofth
egu
nre
stri
ctio
nba
sed
onw
hat
hech
arac
teri
zed
ash
isno
nvio
lent
mis
dem
eano
r.P
et.
App
.8a
-14a
.T
hest
ate
cour
tco
ntr
aste
dth
efl
atgu
nban
inH
elte
rw
ith
long
stan
ding
proh
ibit
ions
ongu
npo
sses
sion
,li
keth
ose
for
felo
nsan
dth
em
enta
lly
ill,
whi
chas
sum
edly
disq
uali
fype
rson
sfr
omex
erci
sing
Sec
ond
Am
endm
ent
righ
ts,
asth
isC
ourt
desc
ribe
din
its
exam
ples
of“p
resu
mp
tiv
ely
law
ful”
reg
ula
tory
mea
sure
s.P
et.
App
.6a
,an
d8a
(quo
ting
Hel
ter,
at62
6-27
&n.
26).
Con
sist
ent
wit
hF
lore
s,th
eco
urt
ofap
peal
foun
dse
ctio
n12
021(
c)(1
)an
alog
ous
tofe
lon
(...c
onti
nued
)th
etr
ial
cour
t,bu
tth
eC
alif
orni
aC
ourt
ofA
ppea
lfo
und
nofd
rfei
ture
,vi
ewin
gth
eis
sue
ason
eof
pure
law
onundis
pute
dfa
cts.
Pet
.A
pp.
16a.
Pet
itio
ner
ackn
owle
dges
inhi
spet
itio
nfo
rce
rtio
rari
that
hera
ised
noS
econ
dor
Fourt
eenth
Am
endm
ent
chal
leng
esto
the
conv
icti
onof
unla
wfu
lpo
sses
sion
ofam
mun
itio
n,an
d,ac
cord
ingl
y,th
atth
eam
mun
itio
nco
nvic
tion
isno
tin
issu
e.P
et.
5n.
4.
in-p
osse
ssio
nla
ws.
Pet
.A
pp.
6a,
8a.
Sim
ilar
stat
ute
s,th
est
ate
cour
tno
ted,
are
uphe
ldby
vir
tual
lyal
lfe
dera
lan
dC
alif
orni
aco
urts
.P
et.
App
.8a
-13a
.T
heco
urt
reje
cted
peti
tion
er’s
asse
rtio
nth
atbat
tery
isno
nvio
lent
,ob
serv
ing
that
the
crim
e’s
defi
niti
onre
quir
esfo
rce
orvi
olen
ceon
anot
her,
and
that
the
tria
lco
urt
corr
ectl
yob
serv
ed,
inde
nyin
gpe
titi
oner
’sm
otio
nto
dism
iss,
that
bat
tery
,li
keas
sault
,p
rese
nts
ath
reat
topu
blic
orde
r.P
et.
App
.14
a.A
sth
eS
econ
dA
men
dmen
tp
erm
its
the
gove
rnm
ent
topro
hib
ital
lfe
lons
(inc
ludi
ngno
nvio
lent
offe
nder
s)fr
ompo
sses
sing
fire
arm
s,th
eco
urt
said
gove
rnm
ent
can
“als
opr
ohib
itfi
rear
mpo
sses
sion
bym
isd
emea
nan
tsw
hoha
vesh
own
apr
open
sity
toco
mm
itvi
olen
ceag
ainst
othe
rs.”
Ibid
.(f
ootn
ote
omit
ted)
.It
foun
dpet
itio
ner
disq
uali
fied
byth
em
isde
mea
nor
bat
tery
conv
icti
onfr
omke
epin
ggu
ns.
Pet
.A
pp.
13a,
14a
n.7,
15a.
4b.
Res
pect
ing
the
equa
lpr
otec
tion
clai
m,
the
cour
tfo
und
the
gun
regula
tion
lim
ited
toth
eS
tate
’sow
nm
isd
emea
nan
tspe
rmis
sibl
eu
nd
erra
tio
nal
-bas
isre
view
,ci
ting
Lew
isv.
Uni
ted
Sta
tes,
445
U.S
.55
(198
0),
and
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
v.V
ongx
ay,
594
F.3
d11
11,
1118
-19
(9th
Cir
.20
10).
Pet
.A
pp.
18a-
19a.
Hel
ter’
sex
cept
ion
for
felo
n-in
-pos
sess
ion
law
s,th
eco
urt
foun
d,al
sore
nd
ers
hei
ghte
ned
scru
tiny
4In
pass
ing,
the
cour
tof
appe
alre
ject
ed(P
etA
pp.
iSa)
peti
tion
er’s
argu
men
t,under
both
the
Sec
ond
Am
endm
ent
and
the
Fourt
eenth
Am
endm
ent
Due
Pro
cess
Cla
use,
atta
ckin
gC
alif
orni
ade
cisi
ons
onse
lf.d
efen
se,
whi
chde
nya
disq
uali
fied
pers
on’s
anti
cipat
ory
keep
ing
ofa
gun
for
self
-def
ense
,b
ut
priv
ileg
eth
atpe
rson
’sus
eof
agu
nto
war
dof
fim
min
ent
per
il(u
nlik
eth
eno
-ope
rabl
e-fi
rear
mba
nin
Hel
ler)
.A
ppel
lant
’sO
peni
ngB
r.at
10-1
7,P
eopl
ev.
Del
acy,
192
Cal
.A
pp.
4th
1481
,12
2C
al.
Rpt
r.3d
216
(200
8)(N
o.A
1258
03).
As
nei
ther
ques
tion
inth
epe
titi
onfo
rce
rtio
rari
refe
rsto
asu
bst
anti
ve
due
proc
ess
clai
m(P
et.
ii),
we
dono
tad
dre
ssit
.
910
inap
pro
pri
ate.
Pet
.A
pp.
19a-
20a.
The
cour
tfo
und
two
just
ific
atio
nsfo
rth
est
atut
e’s
nonre
stri
ctio
nof
pers
ons
wit
hsi
mil
arou
t-of
-sta
tem
isde
mea
nor
conv
icti
ons.
Bot
h,it
expl
aine
d,em
anat
efr
omth
ele
gisl
ativ
eju
dgm
ent
that
,un
like
felo
nies
,“n
otal
lm
isde
mea
nors
,w
hich
vary
wid
ely
insu
bsta
nce
and
seri
ousn
ess,
sugg
est
that
the
viol
ator
cann
otre
spon
sibl
ypo
sses
sw
eapo
ns.”
Pet
.A
pp.
21a.
Fir
st,
“oth
erju
risd
icti
ons
mig
htno
ttr
eat
mis
dem
eano
rcr
imes
,or
atle
ast
som
e[o
fth
em],
wit
hth
esa
me
leve
lof
due
proc
ess
affo
rded
inC
alif
orni
a.”
Ibid
.S
peci
fica
lly,
Cal
ifor
nia
prov
ides
coun
sel
and
noti
cebe
fore
impo
sing
am
isde
mea
nor
gun
rest
rict
ion,
whi
chis
not
nece
ssar
ily
true
ofot
her
juri
sdic
tion
s.P
et.
App
.21
a-22
a.S
econ
d,en
um
erat
ing
the
clas
sof
rest
rict
edcr
imes
wou
ldre
qu
ire
par
sing
fort
y-ni
neot
her
Sta
tes’
law
s.P
et.
App
.22
a.T
hele
gisl
ativ
eal
tern
ativ
eof
desi
gnat
ing
gene
ral
cate
gori
esof
qual
ifyi
ngcr
imes
only
appr
oxim
ates
the
elem
ents
ofsi
mil
arcr
imes
inot
her
juri
sdic
tion
s,“m
akin
git
diff
icul
tfo
ran
offe
nder
tokn
oww
het
her
ap
arti
cula
rou
t-of
-sta
tem
isde
mea
nor
isin
clud
edin
aca
tego
rysu
bjec
tto
the
ban,
and
ther
eby
rais
ing
issu
esof
due
proc
ess.
”P
et.
App
.23
a(c
itin
gU
nite
dS
tate
sv.
Moo
re,
543
F.3
d89
1,89
7(7
thC
ir.
2008
).A
ssu
pp
ort
for
its
conc
lusi
on,
the
cour
tci
ted
Log
anv.
Uni
ted
Sta
tes,
552
U.S
.23
,35
-36
(200
7).
The
re,
the
Cou
rtfo
und
Con
gres
s,in
1986
,st
ruct
ure
d18
U.S
.C.
§92
1(a)
(20)
(B)
soth
atpunis
hm
ent
for
felo
nin
poss
essi
onof
agu
ntu
rned
,in
par
t,on
wh
eth
erS
tate
law
rest
ored
civi
lri
ghts
for
apre
dic
ate
conv
icti
onof
mis
dem
eano
rbat
tery
,but
did
not
exte
ndth
esa
me
trea
tmen
tif
civi
lri
ghts
wer
ere
tain
ed,
and
ade
cade
late
rm
ade
asi
mil
ardi
stin
ctio
nin
pro
hib
itin
ggu
nsto
thos
eco
nvic
ted
ofm
isde
mea
nor
dom
esti
cvi
olen
cein
18U
.S.C
.§
921(
a)(3
3)(B
)(ii
).
9.A
dis
sent
decl
ined
tore
ach
the
Sec
ond
Am
endm
ent
issu
e.P
et.
App
.40
a-41
a.T
hedis
sent
wou
ldha
vere
vers
edon
the
equa
lpr
otec
tion
clai
mu
nd
erei
ther
inte
rmed
iate
orm
inim
umsc
ruti
ny.
Pet
.A
pp.
47a-
53a.
The
dis
sent
sugg
este
dan
“eas
ily
reso
lved
”so
luti
onby
legi
slat
ion
enco
mpa
ssin
ga
“bro
adde
fini
tion
ofth
ecl
ass
ofcr
imes
ofot
her
juri
sdic
tion
s,”
incl
udin
gm
isde
mea
nors
invo
lvin
gth
eus
eor
atte
mpte
dus
eof
phys
ical
forc
eor
the
thre
aten
edus
eof
ade
adly
wea
pon,
asC
ongr
ess
did
inpro
hib
itin
ggu
npo
sses
sion
byth
ose
conv
icte
dof
mis
dem
eano
rdo
mes
tic
viol
ence
.P
et.
App
.52
a(c
itin
g18
U.S
.C.§
921(
a)(3
3)(A
),92
2(g)
(9))
.10
.In
ape
titi
onfo
rre
view
,p
etit
ion
eras
sert
edth
atse
ctio
n12
021(
c)(1
)fa
ils
stri
ctsc
ruti
ny
dem
ande
dby
the
Sec
ond
Am
endm
ent
and
the
Equ
alP
rote
ctio
nC
laus
e.A
ppel
lant
’sP
et.
for
Rev
iew
at8-
9,17
-18,
Peo
ple
v.D
elac
y,19
2C
al.
App
.4th
1481
,12
2C
al,
Rpt
r.3d
216
(200
8)(N
o.51
9174
5).
On
June
8,20
11,
the
Cal
ifor
nia
Sup
rem
eC
ourt
deni
edre
view
.Ju
stic
eK
ennar
dvo
ted
togra
nt
revi
ew.
11.
The
peti
tion
for
wri
tof
cert
iora
riw
asfi
led
onS
epte
mbe
r6,
2011
.O
nO
ctob
er18
,20
11,
the
Cou
rtre
ques
ted
are
spon
se.
Tim
efo
rth
ere
spon
sew
asex
tend
edto
Dec
embe
r16
,20
11.
RE
AS
ON
SW
HY
TH
EP
ET
ITIO
NS
HO
UL
DB
ED
EN
IED
Pet
itio
ner
cont
ends
(Pet
.7-
16)
that
cert
iora
riis
war
rante
dbe
caus
eth
ede
cisi
onbe
low
wid
ens
anex
isti
ngco
nfli
ctam
ong
cour
tsre
view
ing
gun
law
sch
alle
nged
unde
rth
eS
econ
dA
men
dmon
taf
ter
Dis
tric
tof
Col
umbi
av.
Hel
ter,
554
U.S
.57
0(2
008)
.H
eal
soar
gues
(Pet
.6,
16-1
8)th
atth
eS
tate
’sgu
nre
stri
ctio
non
mis
dem
ean
ants
impe
rmis
sibl
yex
pand
sH
elte
r’s
exce
ptio
nfo
rfe
lon-
in-p
osse
ssio
nla
ws,
whi
chhe
view
sas
obit
erdi
ctum
thre
aten
ing
safe
har
bor
to
1112
broa
dla
ws
mak
ing
“acc
iden
tal
felo
ns”
ofth
ose
un
awar
eth
ata
“min
orm
isde
mea
nor”
com
pels
thei
rsu
rren
der
ofar
ms.
Fin
ally
,he
asse
rts
(Pet
.6-
7,19
-21
)th
atth
elo
wer
cour
t’s
reje
ctio
nof
his
equa
lpr
otec
tion
clai
mco
nfli
cts
wit
hfe
dera
lci
rcui
tco
urt
deci
sion
san
dw
ith
this
Cou
rt’s
reje
ctio
nof
rati
onal
rela
tion
ship
revi
ewin
foot
note
27of
Hel
ler.
The
secl
aim
sdo
not
mer
itre
view
.
I.N
oS
UB
ST
AN
TIA
LQ
UE
ST
ION
EX
IST
ST
HA
TT
HE
SE
CO
ND
AM
EN
DM
EN
TP
ER
MIT
SA
BA
TT
ER
ER
’ST
EM
PO
RA
RY
DIS
AR
MIN
G.
Pet
itio
ner
argu
es(P
et.
8)th
atth
eS
tate
cour
tbe
low
crea
ted
a“s
crut
iny-
free
‘saf
ehar
bor”
un
der
the
Sec
ond
Am
endm
ent
for
anal
ogue
sof
Hel
ter’
sre
gu
lato
ryex
cept
ions
,in
stea
dof
asse
ssin
g“p
resu
mpt
ivel
yla
wfu
l”re
stri
ctio
ns
tode
term
ine
“whe
ther
the
pre
sum
pti
on
was
rebu
tted
.”H
eas
sert
sth
ede
cisi
onde
epen
san
exis
ting
conf
lict
onth
equ
esti
onam
ong
fede
ral
circ
uit
cour
ts.
Id.
That
argum
ent
repa
ckag
esth
ede
cisi
onbe
low
ason
ere
ject
ing
the
effo
rtof
pet
itio
ner
tore
but
Hel
ler’
spr
esum
ptio
n.B
utp
etit
ion
erne
ver
mad
esu
chan
effo
rt.
His
arg
um
ent
was
that
the
Sta
te’s
gun
proh
ibit
ion
base
don
abat
tery
conv
icti
onis
not
wit
hin
the
regu
lato
ryex
cept
ions
inH
elle
r.Se
eP
et.
App
.13
a-15
a&
n.8.
He
did
not
clai
mth
atth
epr
esum
ptiv
ely
law
ful
gun
rest
rict
ion
onsp
ecif
ied
mis
dem
eanan
tsne
vert
hele
sshas
tobe
exam
ined
for
con
stit
uti
on
alit
yba
sed
upon
anan
alys
isof
peti
tion
er’s
own
indi
vidu
alci
rcum
stan
ces.
He
pre
sente
dno
ne.
See
Pet
.A
pp.
14a
n.7.
Mor
eove
r,th
eco
nfli
ctin
deci
sion
sid
enti
fied
inth
epet
itio
ndo
esno
ten
com
pass
the
issu
eco
mpo
sing
peti
tion
er’s
faci
alat
tack
onC
alif
orni
aP
enal
Cod
ese
ctio
n12
021(
c)(1
).T
heco
urt
belo
ww
ascl
ear
init
sde
cisi
onth
atth
efa
cial
atta
ckfa
iled
beca
use
pet
itio
ner
did
not
cont
est
that
the
stat
ute
was
capa
ble
ofva
lid
appl
icat
ion.
Pet
.A
pp.
14a
n.8.
He
urge
don
lyth
atbat
tery
isa
nonv
iole
ntm
isde
mea
nor,
unli
keot
her
mis
dem
eano
rsth
athe
taci
tly
ackn
owle
dged
asan
alog
ues
ofH
elte
r’s
exce
ptio
nfo
rfe
lon-
in-p
osse
ssio
nla
ws.
See
ibid
.T
hat
ever
ygu
npr
ohib
itio
non
mis
dem
eanan
ts,
pres
umpt
ivel
yla
wfu
lor
not,
mu
stbe
scru
tiniz
edfo
rm
eans
-end
sco
nst
ituti
onal
ity
free
of“s
afe
harb
ors”
ison
ear
gu
men
tunder
Hel
ter.
Itis
som
ethi
ngel
seen
tire
lyto
argu
eth
aton
eof
fens
e(b
atte
ry),
byco
nst
ituti
onal
fiat
,m
ust
becl
elis
ted
from
the
enu
mer
ated
mis
dem
eano
rsth
attr
igg
era
pres
umpt
ivel
yla
wfu
lgu
npr
ohib
itio
nw
ithin
Hel
ter’
s“s
afe
harb
or.”
The
latt
erw
asth
eS
econ
dA
men
dmen
tqu
esti
onde
cide
dbe
low
.T
hat
ques
tion
isno
tin
the
peti
tion
.A
ndpr
obab
lyth
atis
beca
use
itis
triv
ial.
Whe
ther
Hel
ter’
sex
cept
ion
for
felo
n-in
-po
sses
sion
law
sis
apr
esum
ptiv
ely
law
ful
“saf
eha
rbor
”or
“mer
ely
dict
a”(P
et.
11)
isit
self
ato
osl
ende
rle
gal
thre
adfo
rre
view
.F
irst
,th
epr
inci
ple
ofst
are
deci
sis
adhe
res
not
only
toth
eC
ourt
’sho
ldin
gs,
“but
also
toth
eir
expl
icat
ions
ofth
ego
vern
ing
rule
sof
law
.”S
emin
ole
Tri
beof
Fla
.v.
Flo
rida
,51
7U
.S.
44,
67(1
996)
(quo
ting
Cou
nty
ofA
lleg
heny
v.A
mer
ican
Civ
ilL
iber
ties
Uni
on,
Gre
ater
Pit
tsb
urg
hC
hapt
er,
492
U.S
.57
3,66
8(1
989)
(Ken
nedy
,J.
,co
ncur
ring
and
diss
enti
ng))
.T
heC
ourt
gave
judgm
ent
for
Hel
ler’
sli
cens
ing
and
his
gun’
sre
gis
trat
ion
“[a]
ssum
ing
that
[he]
isno
tdi
squa
lifi
edfr
omth
eex
erci
seof
Sec
ond
Am
endm
ent
rig
hts
..
.
Hel
ter,
554
U.S
.at
635.
Hel
lor
wou
ldno
tha
vehi
sgu
nha
dhe
been
(or
beco
me)
afe
lon.
Itis
diff
icul
tto
see
how
the
safe
har
bor
for
such
law
sis
dict
a.S
econ
d,p
etit
ion
erci
tes
anar
ray
offe
dera
lan
dst
ate
case
sth
atha
veap
plie
dva
ryin
gst
andar
ds
of
1314
revi
ewto
diff
eren
tfi
rear
mre
stri
ctio
ns
ina
wid
era
nge
ofco
ntex
ts(P
et.
9-4
&nn
.8,
9),
but
hehas
not
poin
ted
toa
case
that
appl
ies
stri
ctsc
ruti
ny
tofe
lon-
in-p
osse
ssio
nla
ws.
Nor
does
pet
itio
ner
try
toju
stif
yap
plyi
ngst
rict
scru
tiny
togu
nre
gula
tions
onb
atte
rers
ashe
arg
ued
belo
w.
Mor
eove
r,it
isu
ncl
ear
how
this
swat
hof
deci
sion
sis
rele
van
t.P
etit
ion
ergi
ves
nore
ason
why
felo
n-in
-pos
sess
ion
law
sne
cess
aril
ym
ust
betr
eate
dan
alyt
ical
lyli
keo
ther
regu
lato
ryex
cept
ions
that
are
list
edin
Hel
ler
orth
atm
aybe
reco
gniz
edsu
bseq
uent
ly.
For
exam
ple,
itis
not
obvi
ous
that
Cal
ifor
nia’
ste
mp
ora
rysu
spen
sion
ofgu
nri
ghts
for
conv
icte
dbat
tere
rsne
cess
aril
ym
ust
yiel
dto
the
sam
ere
view
that
cour
tsm
igh
tap
ply
toa
pres
umpt
ivel
yla
wfu
lre
gu
lati
on
like
aco
ncea
led
wea
pons
law
(aty
peof
reg
ula
tio
nir
rele
van
tto
Hel
ler’
sob
tain
ing
ali
cens
efo
ra
gun
inhi
sho
me,
but
that
was
fam
ilia
rto
thos
ew
hora
tifi
edth
eF
ourt
eenth
Am
endm
ent)
,or
ala
wth
atim
pose
sco
ndit
ions
ona
sale
ofa
gun
(aty
peof
regula
tion
that
mig
htin
volv
eco
nsid
erin
git
s“u
ndue
burd
en”)
.Se
eG
onza
les
v.C
arhar
t,55
0U
.S.
124,
156
(200
7).
Thi
rd,
the
fede
ral
circ
uits
pet
itio
ner
cite
sfo
ra
conf
lict
wit
hth
eco
urt
belo
wdi
dno
tst
rike
dow
na
mis
dem
eana
nt-i
n-po
sses
sion
law
whe
nth
equ
esti
onw
asbe
fore
them
.U
nite
dS
tate
sv.
Boo
ker,
644
F,3
d12
,26
(1st
Cir
.20
11),
peti
tion
for
cert
.fi
led
Oct
.3,
2011
(No.
11-6
765)
;U
nite
dS
tate
sv.
Sta
ten,
—F
.3d
—,
2011
WL
6016
976,
*11
(4th
Cir
.20
11);
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
v.C
hest
er,
628
F.3
d67
3,68
0(4
thC
ir.
2010
);U
nite
dS
tate
sv.
Sko
ien,
614
F.3
d63
8,64
2(7
thC
ir.
2010
)(e
nba
nc),
cert
.de
nied
,13
1S.
Ct.
1674
(201
1);
see
also
Inre
Uni
ted
Sta
tes,
578
F.3
d11
95,
1200
(10t
hC
ir.
2009
)(o
rder
)(“
Not
hing
sugg
ests
that
the
Hel
ler
dict
um,
whi
chw
em
ust
follo
w,
isno
tin
clus
ive
•.
.of
thos
eco
nvic
ted
ofm
isde
mea
nor
dom
esti
cvi
olen
ce”)
.M
oreo
ver,
thes
eci
rcui
tco
urt
deci
sion
s
conc
ern
the
po
ten
tial
life
tim
egu
nba
nfo
rdo
mes
tic
viol
ence
mis
dem
ean
ants
under
18U
.S.C
.§
922(
g)(9
).T
his
case
,of
cour
se,
does
not
conc
ern
such
ala
was
the
Cal
ifor
nia
stat
ute
proh
ibit
sgu
npo
sses
sion
for
ten
year
s.P
etit
ion
eral
soar
gues
(Pet
.17
)th
atfu
nd
amen
tal
rights
are
under
min
edby
the
deci
sion
belo
w.
But
this
Cou
rt’s
regula
tory
exce
ptio
nfo
rfe
lon-
in-p
osse
ssio
nla
ws
inH
elle
rm
irro
rsit
sre
peat
edre
cogn
itio
nin
earl
ier
deci
sion
s“t
hat
ale
gisl
atur
eco
nsti
tuti
onal
lym
aypro
hib
ita
conv
icte
dfe
lon
from
enga
ging
inac
tivi
ties
far
mor
efu
nd
amen
tal
than
the
poss
essi
onof
afi
rear
m.”
Lew
isv.
Uni
ted
Sta
tes,
445
U.S
.55
,66
(198
0)(c
itin
gR
icha
rdso
nv.
Ram
irez
,41
8U
.S.
24(1
974)
(dis
enfr
anch
isem
ent)
;B
eV
eau
v.B
rais
tecl
,36
3U
.S.
144
(196
0)(p
rosc
ript
ion
agai
nst
hold
ing
offi
cein
aw
ater
fro
nt
labo
ror
gani
zati
on);
Haw
ker
v.N
ewY
ork,
170
U.S
.18
9(1
898)
(pro
hibi
tion
agai
nst
the
prac
tice
ofm
edic
ine)
).A
nyfe
lony
conv
icti
on,
incl
udin
gon
eob
tain
edw
itho
utco
nsti
tuti
onal
lyre
qu
ired
coun
sel,
can
rati
on
ally
resu
ltin
agu
npr
ohib
itio
n.L
ewis
,44
5U
.S.
at66
.U
phol
ding
Tit
leV
IIof
the
Om
nibu
sC
rim
eC
ontr
olan
dS
afe
Str
eets
Act
of19
68,
this
Cou
rtin
Lew
isde
ferr
edto
“Con
gres
s’w
orry
abou
tth
eea
syav
aila
bili
tyof
fire
arm
s,es
peci
ally
toth
ose
pers
ons
who
pose
ath
reat
toco
mm
unit
ype
ace”
and
toC
ongr
ess’
focu
son
the
“nex
usbe
twee
nvi
olen
tcr
ime
and
the
poss
essi
onof
afi
rear
mby
any
pers
onw
ith
acr
imin
alre
cord
.”L
ewis
,44
5U
.S.
at66
(cit
ing
114
Con
g.R
ec.
1322
0(1
968)
(rem
arks
ofS
en.
Tyd
ings
);id
.,at
1629
8(r
emar
ksof
Rep
.Po
llock
)).
The
sam
eco
ncer
nan
dne
xus
vali
date
the
Cal
ifor
nia
Leg
isla
ture
’sde
cisi
onto
augm
ent
its
felo
n-w
ith-
a-gu
nla
win
Cal
ifor
nia
Pen
alC
ode
sect
ion
1202
1(a)
wit
ha
ten
-yea
rgu
nre
stri
ctio
non
thos
eco
nvic
ted
ofm
isde
mea
nors
enu
mer
ated
inse
ctio
n12
021(
c)(1
).
1516
Hel
ter
and
McD
onal
dv,
City
ofC
hica
go,
561
U.S
.—
,13
0S.
Ct.
3020
,30
47,
177
L.
Ed.
2d89
4(2
010)
,re
flec
tth
atth
eC
alif
orni
aL
egis
latu
re’s
choi
ceis
one
the
Sec
ond
Am
endm
ent
allo
ws.
Fel
on-i
n-po
sses
sion
law
sar
eam
ong
sev
eral
reg
ula
tory
exce
ptio
nsto
the
Am
endm
ent
list
edin
Hel
ter.
The
list
does
not
“pur
port
tobe
exha
usti
ve.”
Hel
ter,
554
U.S
.at
627
n.26
.T
hat
exce
ptio
n,by
its
nat
ure
,st
ands
inop
posi
tion
togu
nba
ns,
like
the
ones
inH
elte
rai
med
atgu
nspo
sses
sed
by“l
aw-a
bidi
ng,
resp
onsi
ble
citi
zens
.”Se
eid
.at
635.
Mor
eove
r,th
ed
isar
min
gof
citi
zens
who
prov
eun
acce
ptab
leri
sks
topu
blic
orde
r,or
who
app
ear
othe
rwis
ein
suff
icie
ntly
resp
onsi
ble
toth
ebo
dypo
liti
c,is
legi
slat
ive
wor
kol
der
than
the
Nat
ion.
5
For
exam
ple,
foun
ding
-era
law
sco
mm
only
deem
edfo
rfei
ted
mis
hand
led
guns
,se
eH
elle
r,55
4U
.S.
at63
3,as
wel
las
the
guns
ofso
me
inte
rlop
ers,
see
Chu
rchi
ll,
Gun
Reg
ulat
ion,
the
Polic
eP
ower
,an
dth
eR
ight
toK
eep
Arm
sin
Ear
lyA
mer
ica,
25L
aw&
His
t.R
ev.
139,
164
(200
7)(C
hurc
hill
)(“
Eac
hco
lony
.•
prov
ided
that
hunte
rsw
itho
uta
‘set
tled
habi
tati
on’
orre
side
nce
inth
eco
lony
wou
ldfo
rfei
tth
eir
guns
.”).
Am
icus
curi
aeC
alif
orni
aR
ifle
and
Pis
tol
Ass
ocia
tion
Fou
ndat
ion,
Inc.
(CR
PA)
pre
sen
tsfo
undi
ng-e
rast
ate
rati
fica
tion
conv
enti
onpr
opos
als
toal
low
dis
arm
ing
for
crim
esco
mm
itte
d,fo
rre
alda
nger
ofpu
blic
inju
ryfr
omin
divi
dual
s,an
dfo
rac
tual
rebe
llio
n,an
d,as
urge
dby
Sam
uel
Ada
ms
inM
assa
chus
etts
,to
lim
itth
eri
gh
tto
“pea
ceab
leci
tize
ns.”
Bri
effo
rC
RP
Aas
Am
ici
Cur
iae
Sup
port
ing
Pet
itio
ner
at8,
11-1
2(C
RPA
Br.
).R
ecog
nizi
ngth
eA
men
dmen
tdo
esno
tco
ntai
nsu
chla
ngua
ge,
CR
PA
argu
esth
ose
prop
osal
sre
flec
t,at
mos
t,th
e“s
ketc
hies
tev
iden
ceth
atvi
olen
tfe
lons
and
insu
rrec
tio
nis
tsm
ight
cons
titu
tion
ally
bedi
sarm
ed.”
Id.
at12
.B
utbat
tery
invo
lves
forc
ean
dvi
olen
ceth
atre
pre
sents
real
dang
erof
publ
icin
jury
from
indi
vidu
als,
The
Mas
sach
use
tts
and
Pen
nsy
lvan
iaco
nven
tion
sre
cogn
ized
“the
pow
erto
dis
arm
crim
inal
san
dth
ose
enga
ged
inri
ot,
affr
ay,
and
oth
erbr
each
esof
the
peac
e.”
Chu
rchi
llat
168;
see
also
Gle
nnH
arla
nR
eyno
lds,
AC
riti
cal
Gui
deto
the
Sec
ond
Am
endm
ent,
62T
enn.
L.
Rev
.46
1,48
0(c
onti
nued
...)
The
reli
abil
ity
ofa
conv
icti
on(o
ra
char
ge)
for
prog
nost
icat
ion
isan
issu
efo
rla
wm
aker
sco
nsid
erin
ga
gun
stat
ute
like
Cal
ifor
nia’
sli
stof
enu
mer
ated
mis
dem
eano
rs—
all
crim
esth
reat
enin
gpu
blic
ord
er.
6T
hat
isno
diff
eren
tin
its
legi
slat
ive
char
acte
rth
anot
her
com
mon
crit
eria
,li
kedi
shon
orab
lem
ilit
ary
disc
harg
e,dr
ugan
dal
coho
lad
dict
ion,
men
tal
inco
mpe
tenc
y,ag
e,al
iena
ge,
rest
rain
ing
orde
rs,
orpa
role
and
prob
atio
nst
atus.
7H
elle
r’s
reg
ula
tory
exce
ptio
nsca
bin
such
line
-dra
win
gfr
omh
eig
hte
ned
scru
tiny.
8P
etit
ion
erco
nten
ds(P
et.
16)
that
this
view
“und
erm
ines
Hel
ter,
”an
dhe
invi
tes
the
Cou
rt“t
o
(...c
onti
nued
)(1
995)
(the
impl
icat
ion
from
the
foun
ding
era’
sem
phas
is“o
nth
evi
rtuo
usci
tize
nis
that
the
rig
ht
toar
ms
does
not
prec
lude
law
sdi
sarm
ing
the
unvir
tuous
(i.e
.cr
imin
als)
orth
ose
who
,li
kech
ildr
enor
the
men
tall
yim
bala
nced
,ar
ede
emed
inca
pabl
eof
virt
ue”)
(inte
rnal
quot
atio
nm
arks
and
foot
note
omit
ted)
.C
RP
Aob
serv
es(C
RP
AB
r.17
)th
atth
een
um
erat
edof
fens
esin
sect
ion
1202
1(c)
(1)
incl
ude
thre
ats
and
poss
essi
ngan
dtr
ansf
erri
ng
wea
pons
wit
hout
viol
ence
.T
hesa
me
coul
dbe
said
offe
lon-
in-p
osse
ssio
nla
ws.
Pet
itio
ner’
sca
seco
ncer
nsbat
tery
,w
hich
defi
niti
onai
lyin
volv
esfo
rce
orvi
olen
ce.
See
Pet
.A
pp.
14a.
Ack
now
ledg
ing
that
law
sco
mm
only
pro
hib
itfi
rear
ms
onth
ose
base
s,C
RPA
expr
essl
yde
clin
esto
take
apo
siti
onon
thei
rco
nsti
tuti
onal
ity.
CR
PA
Br.
17-1
8.S
ince
the
char
ge8
inth
isca
sear
ose
from
ase
izur
eof
guns
inan
unch
alle
nged
prob
atio
nse
arch
,C
RPA
’sar
gum
ent
cannot
bew
ith
disa
rmin
gpe
titi
oner
.It
sar
gum
ent
must
bew
ith
punis
hin
ghi
mfo
ra
poss
essi
oncr
ime
addi
tion
alto
orin
lieu
ofan
ypunis
hm
ent
for
apr
obat
ion
viol
atio
n.It
spo
siti
onis
anom
alou
s.P
etit
ioner
does
not
mak
ecl
ear
what
posi
tion
,if
any,
hehas
onth
ese
othe
rla
ws.
8P
etit
ioner
mis
ses
the
issu
ein
his
clai
m(P
et.
6)th
atC
alif
orni
a’s
gun
law
mak
esfo
r“a
ccid
enta
lfe
lons
”ba
sed
on“m
inor
mis
dem
eano
r[s]
.”W
ere
his
pred
icat
eof
fens
ea
felo
ny,
peti
tion
erm
ight
equa
lly
asse
rt“a
ccid
enta
l”m
isunder
stan
din
gof
gun
law
s—fo
ral
lth
ego
odit
wou
lddo
.
1718
elab
orat
em
ore
onth
esc
ope”
ofth
eS
econ
dA
men
dmen
t(P
et.
18).
He
com
plai
nsth
atth
eco
urt
belo
wfo
und
“a[c
onst
itut
iona
l]ri
ght
[to
bea
rar
ms]
that
enco
mpa
sses
only
‘im
med
iate
’se
lf-d
efen
se,
and
only
whe
nat
tack
ed.”
Pet
.17
.H
eas
sert
sth
atth
eco
urt
view
edth
eA
men
dmen
tas
“lit
tle
mor
eth
anth
eC
astl
eD
octr
ine
com
bine
dw
ith
the
right
ofse
lf-
defe
nse”
(Pet
.16
-17
(foo
tnot
eom
itte
d)),
and
that
itpr
onou
nced
the
right
tobe
arar
ms
“sec
ond-
clas
s”ba
sed
ondi
ctum
inH
elle
r,an
d“e
xtin
ct”
base
don
case
-by-
case
anal
ysis
that
fail
sto
insi
stup
onth
atri
ght
(Pet
.18
(cit
ing
Hel
ler,
554
U.S
.at
634-
36))
.T
helo
wer
cour
the
ldno
neof
that
.P
etit
ione
r’s
rhet
oric
obsc
ures
his
own
arg
um
ent
and
the
deci
sion
belo
w.
Pet
itio
ner’
sS
econ
dA
men
dmen
tco
mpl
aint
was
not
that
his
guns
wer
ene
eded
tode
fend
his
cast
le.
His
obje
ctio
nw
asth
ata
conv
icte
db
atte
rer
isen
titl
edto
guns
.T
hat
arg
um
ent
redis
till
sth
evi
ewth
ata
rest
rict
ion
ofgu
nri
gh
tsb
ased
ona
prio
rcr
ime
“can
rati
on
ally
besu
pp
ort
edon
lyif
the
his
tori
cal
fact
ofco
nvic
tion
isin
deed
are
liab
lein
dica
tor
ofpote
nti
alda
nger
ousn
ess.
”L
ewis
,4
45
U.S
.at
72(B
renn
an,
J.,
diss
enti
ng).
But
Lew
isin
terr
edth
atar
gum
ent.
Itup
held
the
fede
ral
gun
stat
ute
asag
ainst
aneq
ual
prot
ecti
oncl
aim
,u
nd
erth
eF
ifth
Am
endm
ent,
that
urge
dC
ongr
ess
unco
nst
ituti
onal
lyin
clud
edfe
lons
wit
hin
vali
dco
nvic
tion
sin
the
rest
rict
edcl
ass.
Id.
at65
-67.
The
Cou
rtex
plai
ned
that
Con
gres
s’fo
cus
was
not
onth
epr
edic
tive
reli
abil
ity
ofth
epr
edic
ate
offe
nse,
“but
onth
em
ere
fact
ofco
nvic
tion
,or
even
indi
ctm
ent,
inor
der
toke
epfi
rear
ms
away
from
pote
ntia
lly
dang
erou
spe
rson
s.”
Id.
at67
.F
indi
ngth
atle
gisl
ativ
eju
dg
men
t“r
atio
nal,
”id
.,th
eC
ourt
obse
rved
that
the
diss
ent’
sco
ntr
ary
“ass
erti
onse
ems
plai
nly
inco
nsis
tent
wit
hth
ede
fere
nce
that
are
view
ing
cour
tsh
ould
give
toa
legi
slat
ive
det
erm
inat
ion
that
,in
esse
nce,
pred
icts
ap
ote
nti
alfo
rfu
ture
crim
inal
beha
vior
.”Id
.at
67n.
9.T
hus,
the
Cou
rtal
read
yh
asco
unte
dbo
thin
dict
edan
dco
nvic
ted,
not
just
viol
ent,
felo
nsam
ong
pote
ntia
lly
dang
erou
spe
rson
sa
gun
proh
ibit
ion
can
cons
titu
tion
ally
po
lice
.9
The
Cal
ifor
nia
Leg
isla
ture
inse
ctio
n12
021(
c)(1
)de
cide
dth
atth
efa
ctof
conv
icti
onof
cert
ain
mis
dem
eano
rsre
pre
sen
tin
ga
thre
atto
publ
icor
der
wer
e,li
kew
ise,
suff
icie
ntly
reli
able
indi
cato
rsof
the
need
for
ati
me-
out
whe
nit
com
esto
gun
poss
essi
on.
Lew
isdi
dno
tle
ave
the
Fif
thA
men
dmen
ta
“sec
ond-
clas
s”ri
ght
or“e
xtin
ct.”
Nei
ther
isth
eS
econ
dA
men
dmen
tle
ftin
such
ast
ate
byth
elo
wer
cour
t’s
appl
icat
ion
ofon
eof
Hel
ler’
sre
gula
tory
exce
ptio
nsto
reje
ctpe
titi
oner
’scl
aim
that
his
pred
icat
eco
nvic
tion
isan
insu
ffic
ient
pred
icto
rof
dang
erou
snes
sth
atdo
esno
tau
thor
ize
even
ate
mpora
rygu
nre
stri
ctio
n.
II.
TH
EE
QU
AL
PR
OT
EC
TIO
NH
OL
DIN
GB
EL
OW
IsN
oTIN
CO
NF
LIC
TW
ITH
HE
LL
ER
AN
DP
RE
SE
NT
SN
oS
UB
ST
AN
TIA
LIS
SU
EF
OR
RE
VIE
W
Pet
itio
ner
argu
es(P
et.
19)
that
sect
ion
1202
1(c)
(1)
isco
nsti
tuti
onal
lyin
vali
dby
not
punis
hin
gth
epo
sses
sion
ofgu
nsby
pers
ons
wit
hsi
mil
arm
isde
mea
nors
from
othe
rS
tate
sor
coun
trie
s.H
ecl
aim
sth
at“[
t]he
reis
not
any
legi
tim
ate
gove
rnm
enta
lin
tere
st,
muc
hle
ssan
imp
ort
ant
ora
com
pell
ing
one,
serv
edby
such
adi
scri
min
ator
ycl
assi
fica
tion
.”Id
.
°So
has
Con
gres
s.In
2006
,it
prov
ided
cond
itio
nsfo
rp
retr
ial
bail
inch
ild
porn
ogra
phy
case
sth
atre
quir
eth
ede
fend
ant
to“r
efra
infr
ompo
sses
sing
afi
rear
m.”
18U
.S.C
.
§31
42(c
)(1)
(B)(
viii)
.
1920
That
arg
um
ent
dem
onst
rate
sno
purp
ose
tobe
serv
edby
revi
ewin
gth
isca
se,
beyo
ndm
ere
erro
rco
rrec
tion
.If
peti
tion
er’s
arg
um
ent
isri
ght,
then
hei
gh
ten
edm
eans
-end
scru
tiny
isu
nn
eces
sary
and
not
outc
ome-
dete
rmin
ativ
e.T
heca
sew
ould
bere
solv
ed,
asth
ed
isse
nt
belo
wsu
gges
ted
itsh
ould
(Pet
.A
pp.
40a-
41a)
,w
itho
utre
ach
ing
the
Sec
ond
Am
endm
ent
issu
e.T
hat
is,
assu
min
gp
etit
ion
erm
ainta
ins
that
the
stat
uto
rycl
assi
fica
tion
isir
rati
on
alan
d,he
nce,
fall
sw
ithout
heig
hten
edsc
ruti
ny,
the
seco
ndqu
esti
onin
the
peti
tion
—w
het
her
the
fundam
enta
lri
gh
tto
keep
and
bea
rar
ms
issu
bjec
tm
erel
yto
rati
onal
basi
ssc
ruti
ny
(Pet
.ii
)—is
not
pre
sen
ted
byth
isca
se.
Inan
yev
ent,
the
fede
ral
circ
uit
cour
tde
cisi
ons
prev
ious
lydi
scus
sed
refl
ect
that
the
deci
sion
belo
wsu
rviv
eshe
ight
ened
scru
tiny
.M
oreo
ver,
this
Cou
rtin
Lew
isfo
und
that
the
deci
sion
ofC
ongr
ess
in19
68to
incl
ude
all
felo
nsin
ap
ote
nti
alli
feti
me
gun
ban
does
not
deny
the
defe
ndan
tth
eri
ght
toeq
ual
prot
ecti
on.
445
U.s
.at
65.
Thi
sar
gues
stro
ngly
agai
nst
revi
ewof
the
Cal
ifor
nia
Leg
isla
ture
’sm
ore
mod
est
deci
sion
todi
sarm
Cal
ifor
nia
bat
tere
rste
mpo
rari
ly.
Hel
ler
does
not
alte
rth
eeq
uati
on.
The
Cou
rt’s
refe
renc
ein
foot
note
27of
Hel
ler
toth
ein
appl
icab
ilit
y,u
nd
erth
eS
econ
dA
men
dmen
t,of
am
inim
um-s
crut
iny
stan
dar
dto
asse
ssan
alle
ged
viol
atio
nof
the
Sec
ond
Am
endm
ent
resp
onde
dto
the
fact
that
the
Dis
tric
t’s
han
dg
un
ban,
“lik
eal
mos
tal
lla
ws,
”w
ould
pass
rati
onal
-rel
atio
nsh
ipre
view
.F
ootn
ote
27sp
eaks
togu
nla
ws,
like
the
Dis
tric
t’s
ordi
nanc
e,th
atfa
llou
tsid
eH
elle
r’s
reg
ula
tory
exce
ptio
nsan
dth
atfa
ilan
ym
eans
-end
scru
tiny
asan
infr
ing
emen
tup
onth
eco
nst
ituti
onal
right
ofla
w-
abid
ing,
resp
onsi
ble
citi
zens
toa
gun.
554
U.S
.at
628
n.27
&63
5.A
tan
yra
te,
no
thin
gin
that
case
can
“cas
tdo
ubt”
onth
eva
lidi
tyof
felo
n-in
-pos
sess
ion
law
s.Id
.at
626.
Th
atsu
rely
incl
udes
the
fede
ral
felo
n-in
-pos
sess
ion
law
uphe
ldin
Lew
isag
ainst
aneq
ual
prot
ecti
onat
tack
onC
ongr
ess’
incl
usio
nof
cons
titu
tion
ally
inva
lid
pred
icat
eof
fens
es.
The
pet
itio
naf
ford
sno
subst
anti
alba
sis
onw
hich
topr
ess
aneq
ual
prot
ecti
oncl
aim
agai
nst
the
Cal
ifor
nia
Leg
isla
ture
’sno
ninc
lusi
onof
pred
icat
eof
fens
esfr
omot
her
juri
sdic
tion
sin
sect
ion
1202
1(c)
(1),
Th
atcl
assi
fica
tion
eman
ates
,as
the
cour
tof
appea
lbe
low
obse
rved
,fr
om“t
hepr
otec
tion
ofa
defe
ndan
t’s
due
proc
ess
rig
hts
and
the
diff
icul
tyof
craf
ting
effe
ctiv
ele
gisl
atio
n,[w
hich
]co
nsti
tute
legi
tim
ate
gove
rnm
enta
lco
ncer
nsth
atar
esu
ffic
ient
toju
stif
yth
eL
egis
latu
re’s
deci
sion
not
toin
clud
eou
t-of
-sta
tem
isde
mea
nant
s[.]
”P
et.
App
.23
a.T
his
isno
tto
say—
and
the
cour
tbe
low
did
not
hold
—th
atan
yan
dal
lgu
nre
stri
ctio
ns
rela
ting
toa
conv
icte
dm
isd
emea
nan
tne
cess
aril
yar
eva
lid.
21
CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should bedenied.
Dated: December 14, 2011
Respectfully submitted
KAMALA D. HARRISAttorney General of CaliforniaDANE R. GILLETTEChief Assistant Attorney GeneralGERALD A. ENGLERSenior Assistant Attorney GeneralSETH K. SCHALITSupervising Deputy Attorney GeneralLAURENCE K. SULLIVANSupervising Deputy Attorney General
Counsel of RecordCounsel for Respondent
SF200940506220554357.doc
