factual disputes. See Doc. 57. Further, although the Court has reviewed the entire-record, the Court will discuss only the facts necessary to resolve the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. 4 .All further statutory references are to the California Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 5 . See, e.g., Silvester v. Harris, 41 F.Supp.3d 927, 962 (E.D.Cal.2014) (finding California law imposing a 10-day waiting period on purchase of firearms "burdens [and violates] the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms”); United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85, 92 n. 8 (3d Cir.2010) ("Commercial regulations on the sale of firearms do not fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment”); Illinois Ass'n of Firearms Retailers v. City of Chicago, 961 F.Supp.2d 928, 947 (N.D.Ill.2014) (<HOLDING>); Teixeira v. Cnty. of Alameda, No.
holding that chicagos laws which ban gun sales and transfers other than inheritance are declared unconstitutional under the second amendment holding that sales made to contractor who builds roads for the state are not sales to the state and therefore are not exempt holding that because the first sentence of  45106a expressly limited the preemptive effect to inconsistent state regulation it would not infer a negative pregnant from the second sentence of subsection a that laws other than the specific state criminal laws described would be preempted holding direct testimony tying a defendant to a gun was not required when the gun was found in the defendants truck and when the defendant had both ammunition for the gun and a rack in which it could have been kept holding that a juvenile whose sentence is unconstitutional under the eighth amendment is entitled to be resentenced under chapter 2014220 laws of florida