Two New Weapons Cases Rely on Historical Constitutional Guides to Regulate (or not) Access to Guns

By Robert Phillips
Deputy District Attorney (Ret).

Hardy Decision:

• Possession of Assault Weapons
• Short-barreled Shotguns, Silencers
• Large-capacity Magazines
• Transfer of Firearms

In April 2026, California’s Second District Court (Div. 6, San Luis Obispo) upheld several statutes that sought to outlaw various types of weapons. (People v. Hardy (Apr. 22, 2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 45.)

In Hardy, a defendant plead guilty to the unlawful manufacture, distribution, sale or transport of assault weapon (Pen. Code § 30600(a)), possession of a short-barreled shotgun (Pen. Code § 33215), possession of a silencer (Pen. Code § 33410), unlawful large-capacity magazine activity (Pen. Code § 32310(a)), and transfer of a handgun without the involvement of a licensed firearms dealer (Pen. Code § 27545). On appeal, the defendant challenged the constitutionality of P.C. §§ 30600(a) (outlawing assault weapons) and 33215 (outlawing short-barreled shotguns), arguing that these statutes are in violation of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the defendant’s facial constitutional challenges to these statutes failed because neither assault weapons nor short-barreled shotguns constitute arms that are entitled to protection under the Second Amendment. That’s because the government was able to demonstrate that these two statutes are “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” as outlined in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. 1.

In other words, such regulations have been accepted as constitutional since the founding of the United States despite the Second Amendment’s protections of one’s right to “keep and bear arms.”

The court also held that Pen. Code §§ 32310(a) (large-capacity magazines) and 33410 (silencers) similarly withstood the defendant’s constitutional challenges because neither large-capacity magazines nor silencers qualify as “arms.” Per the court: “The 18th-century meaning [of arms] is no different from the meaning today.” (District of Columbia ....

© 2026 Legal Updates, LLC.
This content is protected by copyright law. Republishing or redistribution in any form without written permission is strictly prohibited. For licensing or reprint requests, contact support@legalupdates.com.