People v. Hardy

── People v. Hardy ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/22/26 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B343746 (Super. Ct. No. 23F-04313) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County) v. DYLAN JAMES HARDY, Defendant and Appellant. Dylan James Hardy appeals following guilty pleas to unlawful assault weapon activity (Pen. Code1, § 30600, subd. (a)), possession of a short-barreled shotgun (§ 33215), possession of a silencer (§ 33410), unlawful large capacity magazine activity (§ 32310, subd. (a)), and unlawful transfer of a handgun with no licensed firearms dealer (§ 27545). Appellant received an eight- year split sentence of four years in county jail and four years of mandatory supervision. Appellant mounts facial constitutional challenges to his convictions under the Second Amendment. We reject those challenges and will affirm. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.  DISCUSSION “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (U.S. Const., 2d Amend.) This provision “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” (District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) 554 U.S. 570, 592 [171 L.Ed.2d 637] (Heller).) “[T]he Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.” (McDonald v. Chicago (2010) 561 U.S. 742, 750 [177 L.Ed.2d 894].) In New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. 1 [213 L.Ed.2d 387] (Bruen), the Court clarified the Second Amendment’s application: “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’” (Id. at p. 24.) A facial constitutional challenge “is the ‘most difficult challenge to mount successfully,’ because it requires a defendant to ‘establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.’” (United States v. Rahimi (2024) 602 U.S. 680, 693 [219 L.Ed.2d 351].) Our review is de novo. (People v. Anderson (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 577, 584.) Unlawful Assault Weapon Activity (§ 30600, subd. (a)) and Possession of a Short-Barreled Shotgun (§ 33215) Section 30600 prohibits conduct (e.g., manufacture, import) regarding assault weapons or .50 BMG rifles. (§ 30600, subd. (a)). Designated semiautomatic firearms (e.g., the Colt AR-15 2 series) and firearms with specific features (e.g., a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle with an overall length of fewer than 30 inches) qualify as assault weapons. (§§ 30510, 30515.) Section 33215 prohibits similar conduct regarding—and possession of—short- barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles. (§ 33215.) Appellant’s challenges to these statutes fail because neither assault weapons nor short-barreled shotguns constitute arms entitled to Second Amendment protection. In Heller, the Court explained the Second Amendment does not entail “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” (Heller, supra, 554 U.S. at p. 626.) Based on United States v. Miller (1939) 307 U.S. 174 [83 L.Ed. 1206] (Miller), Heller recognized the Second Amendment protects only “the sorts of weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time.’” (Heller, supra, at p. 627.) In Miller, the Court rejected a Second Amendment challenge to a federal indictment for transporting an unregistered short-ba