People v. Delacy, 192 Cal. App. 4th 1481

Delacy was convicted of four counts of unlawful firearm possession and one count of unlawful possession of ammunition under Penal Code sections 12021, subd. (c)(1) and 12316, subd. (b)(1).
He challenged section 12021, subdivision (c)(1) as violating the Second Amendment and equal protection, and challenged the 12316 conviction on a jury instruction/mistake-of-fact issue and a jury question about mental-state.
Two informations arose from separate incidents: CR142103 (firearms) and CR142660 (ammunition), with probation searches in 2008 uncovering firearms and shells at Delacy’s home.
Delacy allegedly possessed firearms while on probation for misdemeanor battery (242) and argued that the 10-year disqualification for certain misdemeanors was unconstitutional post-Heller.
The ammunition trial occurred first (January 2009) with a guilty verdict on unlawful possession of ammunition and a true finding on the bail-on-offense allegation; the firearms case followed in March 2009 with four firearm-possession convictions after a nonjury trial.
At consolidated sentencing, the court placed Delacy on three years’ probation after suspending imposition of sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §12021, subd. (c)(1) survives Heller scrutiny	Delacy argues §12021(c)(1) violates the Second Amendment.	Delacy argues the statute fails under strict scrutiny post-Heller.	Constitutional under Heller; presumptively lawful regulation not subject to heightened scrutiny.
Equal protection: exclusion of out-of-state misdemeanants	Delacy contends the statute discriminates against California-misdemeanants versus out-of-state equivalents.	The state may rationally distinguish due to due process and enforcement practicality.	Statute upheld under rational basis review; no equal protection violation.
Jury instruction and mental-state element for §12316(b)(1)	Defense alleged error for lack of mistake-of-fact instruction and inadequate answer to mental-state question.	N/A or not urged as reversible error.	No reversible error identified; convictions stand.
Disposition of fees/fines not orally imposed at sentencing	Requests certain fees/fines be stricken due to lack of oral imposition.	N/A or not argued as reversible error.	Judgment affirmed; minute order valid; sentencing fines/fees upheld.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2008) (recognized individual right to possess arms and listed presumptively lawful regulations)
McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2010) (Second Amendment incorporation to the states)
Flores v. City of San Diego, 169 Cal.App.4th 568 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (upheld California §12021, subd. (c)(1) as presumptively lawful under Heller)
Yarbrough v. People, 169 Cal.App.4th 303 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (upheld restrictions on carrying firearms in certain contexts under traditional regulation approach)
U.S. v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (categorical prohibitions may be presumptively lawful; but analyses vary by circuit)
U.S. v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc; rejected simple rational-basis for misdemeanant firearms ban, requiring intermediate scrutiny)
U.S. v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010) (intermediate scrutiny for firearm possession ban in DV misdemeanor context)
U.S. v. Vongxay, 594 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2010) (applied rational-basis review to felon-in-possession; discussed Heller categories as presumptively lawful)
Logan v. United States, 552 U.S. 23 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2007) (upheld sentencing enhancement; discussed disparate consequences across states)
Evans v. Superior Court, 49 Cal.App.4th 1263 (Cal. App. 1996) (equal protection rational-basis framework for §12021(c)(1) challenges when no suspect class or fundamental right)