Facts

Since 1917, the State of California has made it a crime for the average citizen to possess a weapon known as a billy. Plaintiffs brought this case to challenge part of California Penal Code Section 22210 which prohibits possessing an "instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a billy." The statute does not define "billy." Plaintiffs used the term "billy" and "baton" interchangeably, and defendants used the terms "billy," "billy club," and "baton" interchangeably. Both parties agreed that a "billy" is an "arm" as described by the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms; that a billy can be dangerous; and that a Second Amendment analytical approach was proper. Neither party offered evidence of what, precisely, the weapon is that is commonly known as a billy.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that the billy law is an infringement on their federal constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Plaintiffs also contended that the historical prevalence of nationwide restrictions raises merely a rebuttable presumption of constitutionality and that plaintiffs had rebutted that presumption.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions. Defendants contended that a billy is beyond Second Amendment protection for two reasons. First, the 104-year old statute qualifies as a "longstanding" prohibition. Second, a billy is a dangerous and unusual weapon.

Result

Summary judgment in favor of defendant. The court upheld a 104-year old ban on civilian possession of billy clubs.