California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Hardy is that assault weapons, short-barreled shotguns, large capacity magazines, and silencers are not protected "arms" under the Second Amendment, and regulations requiring firearm transfers through licensed dealers do not meaningfully constrain the right to keep and bear arms, under circumstances where defendants mount facial constitutional challenges to California's firearms restrictions.

Appeal from judgment after guilty plea in Superior Court, San Luis Obispo County.

Defendant Appellant was Dylan James Hardy — the individual who pled guilty to multiple firearms violations including 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 with no licensed firearms dealer.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — the prosecuting authority seeking to uphold Hardy's convictions and eight-year split sentence.

The suit sounded in criminal prosecution for firearms violations. No cross-claims were applicable.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Hardy's possession and activity involving assault weapons, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, large capacity magazines, and his transfer of handguns without using a licensed firearms dealer.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court accepted Hardy's guilty pleas to all firearms charges and sentenced him to an eight-year split sentence of four years in county jail and four years of mandatory supervision, ruling that the charges were valid.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether California's prohibitions on assault weapons and short-barreled shotguns violate the Second Amendment 2. Whether California's prohibitions on large capacity magazines and silencers violate the Second Amendment 3. Whether California's requirement that firearm transfers occur through licensed dealers violates the Second Amendment

The Appellate Court held that assault weapons and short-barreled shotguns are not "arms" protected by the Second Amendment because they are not in common use for lawful purposes, that large capacity magazines and silencers are accessories rather than "arms" under the 18th-century definition, and that dealer transfer requirements impose only minimal inconveniences that do not meaningfully constrain Second Amendment rights.

The case is inapplicable when defendants can demonstrate that the specific firearms or accessories are in common use for lawful purposes, when transfer regulations impose meaningful constraints beyond modest fees and inconvenience, or when defendants mount as-applied rather than facial constitutional challenges.

The case leaves open whether specific empirical evidence in the trial court record might support Second Amendment protection for particular weapons, the scope of protection for other firearm accessories not addressed, and the application of these principles to as-applied constitutional challenges.