With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Fortson challenges the California law both facially and as applied to him. Since we have already upheld the more restrictive federal lifetime ban for persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, we now must uphold the California law as well. See United States v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127, 1139-41 (9th Cir. 2013). We also hold that the law was validly applied to Fortson. Fortson additionally maintains that defendants violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by falsely arresting him and maliciously prosecuting him. Since the record reflects that his arrest and prosecution were based on probable cause that he possessed the weapons unlawfully, he necessarily cannot be granted relief on these claims. See Dubner v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2001) (<HOLDING>); Lassiter v. City of Bremerton, 556 F.3d 1049,

A: holding that the existence of probable cause for an arrest is a complete defense to a first amendment retaliation claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity
B: holding that the existence of probable cause is a complete defense to a  1983 claim alleging false arrest
C: holding that probable cause is a complete defense to an action for false arrest
D: holding that there is no  1983 cause of action for false arrest unless the arresting officer lacked probable cause
B.