Dylan James Hardy pleaded guilty in San Luis Obispo County to unlawful assault weapon activity, possession of a short-barreled shotgun, possession of a silencer, unlawful large-capacity magazine activity, and unlawful transfer of a handgun without a licensed firearms dealer. He received an eight-year split sentence of four years in county jail and four years of mandatory supervision. On appeal, he argued that each of the five underlying statutes violated the Second Amendment on its face.
The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, affirmed. Applying the Bruen framework, the court held that the threshold question — whether the Second Amendment's plain text covers the conduct at issue — defeated most of Hardy's claims before any historical analysis was required.
On assault weapons and short-barreled shotguns, the court held that neither category constitutes arms in common use for lawful purposes. It relied on Heller's reading of Miller, which established that short-barreled shotguns are not protected, and on Heller's statement that bans on M-16 rifles and the like would not violate the Second Amendment. The court declined to consider survey and registration data Hardy cited from sources outside the trial record, including a press release on a website associated with Senator Rick Scott. The court also declined to extrapolate from the Supreme Court's recent observation in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos that "[t]he AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country," noting that case did not reference the Second Amendment.
On large-capacity magazines and silencers, the court held that neither qualifies as an arm under the eighteenth-century definition Heller endorsed — weapons of offence or armour of defence, or anything that a man wears for his defence, takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another. Following the Ninth Circuit's reasoning in Duncan v. Bonta, the court held that a large-capacity magazine without a firearm is useless in combat and is an accessory, not an arm, and that it is not necessary to operate any firearm. The court applied the same logic to silencers, describing them as optional accessories unnecessary to operate a firearm, and citing the Tenth Circuit's observation in United States v. Cox that a silencer is a firearm accessory, not a weapon in itself.
On the dealer-transfer requirement under Penal Code section 27545, the court applied the Ninth Circuit's ancillary-rights doctrine from United States v. Vlha, which protects activities ancillary to keeping and bearing arms only if the regulation meaningfully constrains that core right. The court held that fees totaling less than $50, the need to travel in rural areas, and the creation of government records do not rise to that level. The court analogized the statute to the shall-issue licensing regimes discussed in Bruen, noting that section 27545 appears to contain only narrow, objective, and definite standards and that there is no indication it has been put toward abusive ends.
The court also declined to reach Hardy's federal preemption argument regarding silencers and short-barreled firearms, treating it as forfeited because it was raised in a single conclusory paragraph without developed analysis.
The opinion was certified for publication. Justice Cody authored the opinion, with Justice Yegan, Acting Presiding Justice, and Justice Baltodano concurring.