Whether facial Second Amendment challenges require proving no set of circumstances where the statute is valid or only that a substantial number of applications are unconstitutional

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. For facial challenges to a state prosecution on Second Amendment grounds, must a criminal defendant prove that no set of circumstances exist under : which the charging statute would be valid, or may the defendant rely on the overbreadth principle of United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 473 (2010) and / establish only that “a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep”? 2. When this Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, U.S. __ [142 8.Ct. 2111] (2022) holding that when a government regulation infringes on an individual’s Second Amendment right to bear arms, the | regulation is presumptively unconstitutional unless and until the government justifies the regulation with analogous historical precedent, did it intend for that analysis to apply to criminal defendants charged with unlawful firearm possession? | | 3. Is California’s “may issue” firearm licensing scheme unconstitutional | in light of this Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, __US. __ [142 8.Ct. 2111] (2022)? ii