Should California Penal Code § 12022.53 be struck down and voided as vague and standardless legislation?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ¢ Should California Penal Code § 12022.53 be , struck down and voided as vague and standardless legislation? Does petitioner’s conviction serve as an example of an arbitrary enforcement? ¢ Did California Supreme Court fail to incorporate Rosemond’s substantive holding into their jurisprudence? ¢ Does the act as currently interpreted, deprive defendants of accurate fact-finding regarding the principle of armed-intent? ¢ Was § 12022.53 subd.(e) originally intended to be a penalty provision or limitation clause? e In this case, would a 25 years-to-life consecutive enhancement for a first-time felon/youth offender seem to violate the Eight Amendment to the U. S. Constitution? ¢ With the harsh penalty alongside the lack of sentencing triad in mind, shouldn’t that indicate § 12022.53’s application be limited to the most extreme case facts and circumstances? * Would the simple fact of several legislative amendments, by itself raise questions about how the act’s original intent compares to its current usage? ii * Considering the heavy consecutive penalty : behind § 12022.53, might it make homeowners hesitant to use a firearm in defense of their property? In that sense, does the act create a Second Amendment issue? ¢ Does the fact of § 12022.53’s identical punishment for both GBI and death—two very different crimes—without any explanation, raise concerns regarding the act’s nature and purpose?