How have courts interpreted the term "armed with a firearm" in legislation adopted through the initiative process?

Where, as here, "the language of a statute uses terms that have been judicially construed, '"the presumption is almost irresistible"' that the terms have been used '"in the precise and technical sense which had been placed upon them by the courts."' [Citations.] This principle [likewise] applies to legislation adopted through the initiative process. [Citation.]" (People v. Weidert, supra, 39 Cal.3d at pp. 845-846.) Accordingly, we conclude (and both parties assume) the electorate intended "armed with a firearm," as that phrase is used in the Act, to mean having a firearm available for offensive or defensive use.

Page 8