In People v. Conley (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 566, the defendant, a former police officer, was convicted of a misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, 242, 243, subd. (a)). He argued he should be relieved of the 10-year firearm prohibition of Penal Code section 12021, subdivision (c)(1) that results from a conviction for battery. (People v. Conley, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 568.) Penal Code section 12021, subdivision (c)(2) authorized the court could relieve a peace officer of the 10-year firearm prohibition when the officer is subject to the prohibition based on a conviction for violation of Penal Code section 273.5, 273.6, or 646.9--offenses involving domestic abuse--when the court makes certain favorable findings. (People v. Conley, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 572.) The defendant in Conley contended the statute violated equal protection because while the statute permitted a court to relieve a police officer of the 10-year firearm prohibition when convicted of domestic abuse, a police officer convicted of the lesser included offense of battery was not entitled to relief. (Id. at p. 576.) The appellate court found the defendant could not raise the equal protection issue because his conviction for battery did not arise out of a domestic dispute. "'"One who seeks to raise a constitutional question must show that his rights are affected injuriously by the law which he attacks and that he is actually aggrieved by its operation." ' Conley may not raise equal protection claims of other hypothetically disadvantaged peace officers as a basis to invalidate the statute's application to the circumstances of his case. " (Ibid.)