In a blow to responsible Golden State gun owners, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled this week that California’s ban on magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds is constitutional.
The en banc 7-4 decision in the case known as Duncan v. Becerra was split along party lines with all four Republican appointees dissenting.
A Clinton-appointee, Judge Susan P. Graber, penned the decision for the majority.
“The ban on legal possession of large-capacity magazines reasonably supports California’s effort to reduce the devastating damage wrought by mass shootings,” wrote Graber.
“Large-capacity magazines allow a shooter to fire more bullets from a single firearm uninterrupted,” she continued, “and a murderer’s pause to reload or switch weapons allows potential victims and law enforcement officers to flee or to confront the attacker.”
Eight states and the District of Columbia have similar prohibitions on feeding devices, and six other federal appeals courts have upheld those laws, noted Graber.
“The ban on large-capacity magazines has the sole practical effect of requiring shooters to pause for a few seconds after firing 10 bullets, to reload or to replace the spent magazine,” Graber wrote. “Nothing in the record suggests that the restriction imposes any more than a minimal burden on the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”
In his dissent, Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, a Trump appointee, rejected the notion that these magazines pose a specific threat to public safety, writing they are “commonly owned by millions of law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”
SEE ALSO: Here’s Why You Need More than One Handgun
“These magazines are neither dangerous and unusual, nor are they subject to longstanding regulatory measures,” Butamay added.
Fellow Trump appointee, Judge Lawrence VanDyke, agreed. In a separate dissent, he argued that mass shootings are statistically rare events and that standard capacity magazines are needed for self-defense, especially in instances where one is faced with multiple attackers.
“The majority of our court distrusts gun owners and thinks the 2nd Amendment is a vestigial organ of their living constitution,” VanDyke wrote.
Everytown for Gun Safety applauded the decision.
“Today’s ruling is the latest recognition from the federal courts that reasonable gun safety laws are entirely consistent with the 2nd Amendment,” said Eric Tirschwell, executive director of Everytown Law, the organization’s legal arm.
“This is great news for Californians and an important contribution to the centuries of legal precedent backing life-saving gun laws,” he added.
Following the passage of Proposition 63 in 2016, California outlawed the possession of “large-capacity” magazines.
Prop 63 also ended a grandfather provision for those who obtained mags prior to 2000. Under the new law, there were no exemptions and all 10-plus round magazines were subject to forfeiture by July 1, 2017.
It was around that time when the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), along with Virginia Duncan and several other plaintiffs, filed their lawsuit against the state and then-California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.
Moving forward it appears as though CRPA will appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Alan Gottlieb, the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, believes the high court will ultimately strike down the mag ban.
“It is just a matter of time until the United States Supreme Court overturns this 9th Circus decision,” he told GunsAmerica via email. “It could even happen before this ruling is directly appealed when they rule on the current New York case which is before them. That ruling could establish the correct standard of review for Second Amendment rights.”
Stay tuned for updates.
Yes! You tell em blue dog. Now come back to bed.
“minimal burden”
Show me where in the Second Amendment it states that?
I’ll wait….
What it DOES say is “shall not be infringed”, the ONLY Amendment to state such!
The 9th Circus: the most overturned court in the entire history of the US.
There is a reason the court is known as “ the 9th circus “ .
In her own admission Judge Susan P. Graber, who penned the decision for the majority states, “Nothing in the record suggests that the restriction imposes any more than a minimal burden on the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”
Last time I checked, even a minimal burden is infringement – even if it is a minimal infringement. That is a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment. So explain to me again how this is constitutional? I don’ t believe the 2nd Amendment mentions anything about the right to bear arms may not be infringed unless that infringement is minimal.
And I didn’t need to spend years in college, pass a BAR Exam, or cheese up to any politicians to figure that out. These “justices” who are sworn to support and defend the constitution should be tossed when they openly admit they don’t support the constitution through BS like this.
If they can tell us how many bullets a gun can hold, the number will keep dropping as time passes. No more than ten today, eight tomorrow, five the next time and eventually, only one, till there are none left. Or maybe they will determine the grains each bullet will be allowed, just to make sure that they cannot penetrate the skin and harm someone. They’ve got most people wearing face diapers, which in truth are merely orange jumps suits in disguise. They don’t protect but they do imprison. How many vaccines will it take to understand that Communism and Socialism will take away every right you ever had? Guns represent freedom and perhaps the very ability to keep ourselves free, or at least somewhat free. Every American should understand this and be on board with this. If you’re not, then you should go find yourself a nice socialist country to reside in.
The sanctity of our institutions (court system) is at risk when we identify our judges by the political party who appointed them. If you are reporting on the news broadcast it should be noted that they do not mention which party they are from. By doing so we are creating a division rather than practicing sound reporting.
I read GunsAmerica everyday and I encourage you to keep you standards high and reinforce our institutions rather than decide them.
Thanks for all the work you do.
That is an incorrect assumption that the writer of this article is threatening the sanctity of the court system. The fact that democrat appointed judges are not upholding the constitution is the problem. It is also a problem when republican appointed judges do not uphold the constitution. It does say that the judges who are appointed by democrats, in this case, do not respect the constitution. They are more concerned with pushing their political opinion.
The liberal clowns on this court would also most likely support China and Russia controlling the country!
“Well Regulated” doesn’t mean to regulate as the term is used today. You communist love to change the definitions of words to fit your narrative. It means to be “ready” or in “working order”. Kind of like how the communist are trying to change the definition of vaccination. Vaccination isn’t for immunization anymore. Now it’s to just lessen your symptoms. Convenient. It’s really nice having judges vote with their feelings instead of actually reading the constitution. It just barely infringes on a right that is not supposed to be infringed on at all.
Why can’t they make cars that don’t run over 80 people at a parade?
Weirdly, that very thing is addressed in the infrastructure bill currently pending in the House.
Making sure that cartels, criminal gangs, thugs, that obey no laws have an advantage over those foolish enough to comply. What happened to shall not be infringed?
What happened to well-regulated?
If California can pass laws to keep cars without environmental controls or pre-packaged food-like snack products, why can’t they pass laws to keep out high cap mags?
Does it apply to clips too? Like a stripper clip that holds 15 rounds? Or in New York where the limit was 7, would that restrict a Garand clip? I think the legal term is ammunition feeding device, would that include clips?
Are you really that simple as to not understand what “well-regulated” meant in 1776? That’s rhetorical considering your ignorant statement. So I shall educate you.. it means in good working order, as well as the term “militia” ,As explained in the militia act of 1792,pertains to all US citizens. You’re either willfully ignorant or just a liar not sure which is worse. But there’s a free education for you.