People v. Zondorak
163 Cal. Rptr. 3d 491
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant William Zondorak stipulated he knowingly possessed an operable semi-automatic CN Romarm AK-series rifle in California and was charged under former Penal Code § 12280 (AWCA).
- He waived a jury trial; the trial court found him guilty and denied his pretrial motion to dismiss based on Second Amendment grounds.
- Zondorak appealed, arguing the AWCA ban on AK-series rifles violates his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as interpreted in District of Columbia v. Heller.
- The Court of Appeal applied a two-step Heller-based framework: (1) ask whether the weapon falls within the Second Amendment’s protected class; (2) if so, apply appropriate scrutiny.
- The court concluded AK-series semi-automatic assault weapons are "dangerous and unusual" and not in common use for lawful purposes, placing them outside Second Amendment protection; therefore no further means-end scrutiny was required.
- Judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AWCA §12280's ban on AK-series semi-automatic rifles violates the Second Amendment | People: AWCA is constitutional; bans weapons outside Second Amendment protection | Zondorak: Heller protects an individual right to possess arms for self-defense, so the ban on AK rifles is unconstitutional | Held: Ban is constitutional because AK-series rifles are "dangerous and unusual" and outside Second Amendment protection; inquiry ends at step one |
| Whether the weapon’s in-home possession for self-defense alters protection | People: If weapon type is unprotected, location/purpose (home/self-defense) does not create protection | Zondorak: Possession in the home for self-defense should be protected under Heller | Held: Home possession does not rescue otherwise unprotected weapons from exclusion |
| Appropriate level of scrutiny if weapon is protected | People: If within protection, apply means-end scrutiny; but here weapon is unprotected so no scrutiny necessary | Zondorak: If protected, statute must survive intermediate or strict scrutiny | Held: No scrutiny applied because weapon found outside Second Amendment scope |
| Whether legislative incrementalism/unequal coverage invalidates the statute | People: Legislature may act incrementally; unequal coverage does not make the ban invalid | Zondorak: Similar weapons not covered undermine the ban's constitutionality | Held: Uneven legislative coverage does not invalidate the statute; equal protection not raised/successful here |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (individual right to possess firearms for self-defense; not all weapons protected)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (Second Amendment incorporated against the states)
- U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (Second Amendment does not protect weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes)
- People v. James, 174 Cal. App. 4th 662 (AWCA ban on semi-automatic assault weapons does not violate Second Amendment)
- U.S. v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (two-step test: whether conduct is protected, then means-end scrutiny if so)
- U.S. v. Fincher, 538 F.3d 868 (machinegun possession not protected by Second Amendment)
- Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (adopts two-step approach to Second Amendment challenges)
- Kasler v. Lockyer, 23 Cal.4th 472 (upholding AWCA against equal protection challenge)