In People v. King (1978) 22 Cal.3d 12, the defendant was at a birthday party when a fight broke out between an uninvited guest and the guest of honor. (Id. at p. 16.) As the two men fought outside the apartment, several friends of the uninvited guest swarmed in front of the apartment, fighting, shouting, and trying to break into the apartment. (Id. at pp. 16-17.) Defendant was injured when one of the party crashers threw a hibachi grill through the window. (Id. at p. 18.) Inside the apartment with the defendant were a handful of other guests, mostly women, and a disabled man. (Id. at p. 17.) Those inside the apartment were "near hysteria" and had called the police, but the police had not yet arrived. (Id. at p. 26; see also id. at pp. 17-18.) In People v. King (1978) a person handed a gun to the defendant, a felon, shortly before the defendant used it to shoot towards persons in circumstances which otherwise would have entitled him to jury instructions on the use of deadly force in self-defense. (King, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 15, 18.) The defendant was charged with a violation of the previously mentioned former version of Penal Code section 12021, subdivision (a)(1) (see fn.10, ante), but the trial court refused to instruct on self-defense, and the jury convicted him of the charge. (King, at p. 15.) As defendant went outside to confront the party crashers, a woman pulled a handgun from her purse and handed it to him. (King, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 18.) He took it with him and fired several shots into the air to disperse the crowd. (Ibid.) Although they initially retreated, the uninvited guests then regrouped and again surged toward the apartment door. (Ibid.) The defendant again fired over their heads, but one of the crowd was hit and suffered a minor gunshot wound. The defendant was charged with two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, as well as being a felon in possession of a concealable weapon. (Id. at pp. 18-19.) The jury was instructed on self-defense, defense of others, and defense of habitation with respect to the assault charges, and he was acquitted on those counts. (King, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 19.) However, his request for instructions on self-defense with respect to the felon-in-possession charge was denied. 4 (Ibid.) After reviewing the history of section 12021, the Court held this was reversible error: "The prohibition of section 12021 was not intended to affect a felon's right to use a concealable firearm in self-defense, but was intended only to prohibit members of the affected classes from arming themselves with concealable firearms or having such weapons in their custody or control in circumstances other than those in which the right to use deadly force in self-defense exists or reasonably appears to exist. Thus, when a member of one of the affected classes is in imminent peril of great bodily harm or reasonably believes himself or others to be in such danger, and without preconceived design on his part a firearm is made available to him, his temporary possession of that weapon for a period no longer than that in which the necessity or apparent necessity to use it in self-defense continues, does not violate section 12021." (King, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 24.) The holding was expressly limited to circumstances where "possession of the weapon in question was solely for the purpose of self-defense, and was not preplanned, and did not continue beyond the existence of the circumstances giving rise to the right to self-defense . . . ." (King, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 26.) The defense was available to King because he "did not come into possession of the pistol he used prior to the exigency which made its use reasonably appear to be necessary." (Id. at p. 26.) In such circumstances, "brief use of a concealable firearm, without predesign or prior possession of the weapon, in the exercise of the right to self-defense, defense of others, or defense of habitation would not constitute the possession, custody, or control of the firearm which the Legislature has prohibited in section 12021." (Id. at pp. 26-27) King concluded, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the Legislature, when enacting Penal Code section 12021, subdivision (a)(1), did not intend to preclude felons from possessing and using concealable firearms in self-defense. (King, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 15, 20-24.) King later stated: "Thus, when a member of one of the affected classes a felon or a drug addict is in imminent peril of great bodily harm or reasonably believes himself . . . to be in such danger, and without preconceived design on his part a firearm is made available to him, his temporary possession of that weapon for a period no longer than that in which the necessity or apparent necessity to use it in self-defense continues, does not violate section 12021. As in all cases in which deadly force is used or threatened in self-defense, however, the use of the firearm must be reasonable under the circumstances and may be resorted to only if no other alternative means of avoiding the danger are available. In the case of a felon defending himself alone, such alternatives may include retreat where other persons would not be required to do so. (King, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 24.) In short, the defendant was a guest at a party. During a violent altercation with a group of party crashers who were kicking and pounding on the front door and threatening to break it down, defendant was handed a .25 caliber pistol which he fired in an attempt to frighten the intruders. The court held, "Inasmuch as defendant's brief use of a concealable firearm, without predesign or prior possession of the weapon, in the exercise of the right to self-defense, defense of others, or defense of habitation would not constitute the possession, custody, or control of the firearm which the Legislature has prohibited in section 12021, it was error for the court to fail to instruct the jury regarding the relevance of these defenses to the 12021 charge." ( Id., at pp. 26-27.)