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 S.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,
__U.S. __ [142 S.Ct. 2111] (2022)?

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