State v. Enrrique H.

Summary

The court affirmed convictions for possessing a firearm or ammunition while subject to a protective order and for violating a protective order. It held that the statutory phrase "a case involving" physical force encompasses the entirety of a prior proceeding, so the firearm-possession charge could rely on protective orders issued in sex-offense prosecutions in which physical force was present in some aspect of the case. The court also rejected the as-applied vagueness claim and held that the Second Amendment challenge was barred because it constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the underlying protective orders.