162 Cal. Rptr. 3d 225
App. Div., Super. Ct. Cal.2013Background
- On March 6, 2012, Liscotti agreed to a court trial on possessing a billy under former §12020(a)(1) (now §22210).
- The billy was a full-size modified baseball bat weighted with lead, wrapped in rope, with a hole drilled and a bolt inserted; he altered it prior to trial.
- Liscotti admitted to using the billy once in a private one-on-one and claimed self-defense; he argued the weapon was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
- Judge Wright declined to rule the statute unconstitutional and later noted the Second Amendment does not apply to the weapon.
- The trial court’s judgment was affirmed on appeal; the court analyzed the Second Amendment and the statute under intermediate scrutiny.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is possession of a billy protected by the Second Amendment? | Liscotti argues the billy is within Second Amendment protection. | The People contend the billy is not typically possessed for lawful purposes and falls outside protection. | No, the billy is not protected by the Second Amendment. |
| Is Penal Code former §12020(a)(1) facially unconstitutional? | Liscotti contends the statute is unconstitutional as applied to him; concerns over overbreadth are implicit. | The People maintain the statute is constitutional and narrowly tailored to prevent violence. | Not facially unconstitutional. |
| Is Penal Code former §12020(a)(1) constitutional as applied to Liscotti? | Liscotti asserts the statute unjustly restricts his self-defense and personal circumstance. | The People argue the weapon’s nature and risk justify the statute as applied. | Constitutional as applied to Liscotti. |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. Supreme Court 2008) (establishes core right to keep and bear arms with limits)
- People v. Mitchell, 209 Cal.App.4th 1364 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (weighs Second Amendment limits and weapon classifications)
- United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (U.S. 1939) (militia-related test for weapon regulation)
- United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3rd Cir. 2010) (intermediate scrutiny for weapons restrictions)
- People v. Grubb, 63 Cal.2d 614 (Cal. 1965) (weapons not protected by the Second Amendment when inherently dangerous)
- Mack v. United States, 76 A.3d 1224 (D.C. Ct. App. 2010) (public-safety rationale for dangerous weapons regulation)
- Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, 9 Cal.4th 1069 (Cal. 1995) (facial challenges require examining statute text and ordinary application)
- American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 16 Cal.4th 307 (Cal. 1997) (facial challenge standards and deference to statutory text)