• 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?

• 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?

• 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?

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