In reviewing the court's order, it appears that the important points are:
(1) Only those who have actually been denied the right to purchase firearms because of a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statue. Simply being dissuaded from trying to purchase a firearm is not enough.
(2) The court recognized that other courts have held the statute not to be unconstitutional on its face. However, the court has kept alive the single "as applied" challenge; that being that the lifetime ban is unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff Enos because his conviction was more than ten years old and California had restored his right to own a firearm under state law.