Appeals Court Finds California’s Large Capacity Magazine Ban Doesn’t Violate 2nd Amendment

An en banc panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on Thursday that California’s large-capacity magazine ban, which bars firearm magazines from holding 10 rounds or more, does not violate the 2nd Amendment.

According to the Duncan v. Bonta ruling, the 2023 federal District Court ruling which struck down the high capacity ban in 2023 has now been ruled against. In a close 7-4 decision, the Appeals judges found that magazines themselves are not firearms and instead are accessories, and thus not protected by the second amendment.

“The text of the Second Amendment does not encompass the right to possess large-capacity magazines because they are neither ‘arms’ nor protected accessories,” read the majority opinion. Large-capacity magazines are optional accessories to firearms, and firearms operate as intended without a large-capacity magazine. Possession of a large-capacity magazine therefore falls outside the text of the Second Amendment. California’s ban falls within the Nation’s tradition of protecting innocent persons by prohibiting especially dangerous uses of weapons and by regulating components necessary to the firing of a firearm.”

Multiple judges swiftly released their dissenting opinions  following the Duncan ruling on Thursday.

“Bruen did two things: (1) it ended judicial interest balancing and (2) it provided a new framework for considering Second Amendment challenges,” said Judge Patrick J. Bumatay in his dissenting opinion. “Despite this revolutionary change, things remain the same at the Ninth Circuit. Faithfully applying Bruen requires a course correction that the majority refuses to take. Instead, the majority just declares it knows better and charts its own path. But that disrespects the Supreme Court and the rule of law.”

“But the majority didn’t just butcher the Second Amendment and give a judicial middle finger to the Supreme Court. It also spurned statutory procedure for en banc proceedings. As explained in my dissent from the order filed concurrently with this opinion, this en banc court lacks statutory jurisdiction to decide this new appeal, years after it remanded the prior appeal to the district court,” explained Judge Ryan Nelson in his own opinion.

In an unusual move, Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s opinion came through that of a video, showing himself handling firearms and giving a basic explanation of how they functioned.

“It occurred to me that in this instance, showing is much more effective than telling,” added VanDyke. “As the old saying goes, a picture is sometimes worth a thousand words. And here, I hope you will agree that a video is at least worth that much.”

Attorney General Rob Bonta praised the ruling on Thursday, saying that the ban would help prevent mass shootings and other similar events in the future. Also noted were the similarities between the Duncan ruling and a 2021 Appellate Court high capacity firearms magazines ban ruling that essentially decided the same way, down to the 7-4 split between judges.

“Today, the court found that California’s ban on large-capacity magazines does not violate the Second Amendment. California’s ban on large-capacity magazines has been a key component in our efforts to fight gun violence and prevent senseless injuries and deaths and the devastation of communities and families that are left behind in the wake of mass shootings,” said Attorney General Bonta in a statement. “This commonsense restriction on how many rounds a gunman can fire before they must pause to reload has been identified as a critical intervention to limit a lone shooter’s capacity to turn shootings into mass casualty attacks. Let me be clear, this law saves lives. Today’s ruling is an important win — not only in this case, but in our broader efforts to protect California communities from gun violence.”

However, opponents vowed to bring the case up to the U.S. Supreme Court following the ruling, finding  that the court’s opinion that magazines were not associated with firearms was weak and that previous firearms cases worked out in their favor at the highest court in the country.

“This incorrect ruling is not surprising considering the inclination of many 9th Circuit judges to improperly limit the Second Amendment’s protections,” said California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) President Chuck Michel to the Globe on Thursday. “We will seek review from the Supreme Court immediately. That Court has already vacated an incorrect ruling from the 9th Circuit in this case once, and we expect that the Justices will do that again. It is high time for the Supreme Court to reign in lower courts that are not following the Supreme Court’s mandates as laid out in the Heller and Bruen cases, and this case presents an opportunity for the High Court to do that emphatically.”