9th Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds California’s Ban on ‘High-Capacity Firearm Magazines’

An 11 judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 7-4 on Tuesday to uphold California’s ban on high-capacity firearm magazines, overturning an earlier District Court ruling.

In 2016, California voters voted in favor on Proposition 63, banning all magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, as well as other changes such as issuing fines to gun owners who fail to report when firearms were stolen or lost. Gun advocates quickly went on the offensive and brought lawsuits against the ban citing Second Amendment rights. While many early cases failed, such as Duncan V. Becerra in 2017 and a 2019 District Court ruling, advocates finally succeeded last year. In August 2020, a three judge panel on the same Appellate Court ruled in a 2-1 decision that the state ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition as struck “At the core of the Second Amendment – the right to armed self-defense.” Shocked by the decision, California Governor Gavin Newsom and then-Attorney General Xavier Becerra quickly appealed the decision, leading to the court to reconsider the case in February.

“Large-capacity magazines have been used in many horrific mass shootings around the country, including right here in California,” said Becerra earlier this year. “This is the next step in the defense of our state’s common sense gun laws.”

Gun advocates, such as the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, the latter of whom originally filed the case to stop the ban, which quickly defended the August 2020 ruling, took up the cause again in court, following the court’s decision to reconsider the case.

In their ruling Tuesday, the Appellate Court noted that large-capacity magazines were designed more for soldiers rather than civilians, with benefits for civilians being minimal compared to how they could be used by criminals. The court specifically mentioned statistics showing that, since the early 1970’s, large-capacity magazines were used in the vast majority of gun massacres, with no evidence showing that the ban hindered people to defend their homes and loved ones.

“The ban on legal possession of large-capacity magazines reasonably supported California’s effort to reduce the devastating damage wrought by mass shootings,” noted Circuit Judge Susan Graber in the panel’s majority opinion.  “In sum, large-capacity magazines provide significant benefit to soldiers and criminals who wish to kill many people rapidly. But the magazines provide at most a minimal benefit for civilian, lawful purposes. The ban is a reasonable fit for the important government interest of reducing gun violence.

“The limitation interferes only minimally with the core right of self-defense, as there is no evidence that anyone ever has been unable to defend his or her home and family due to the lack of a large-capacity magazine; and the limitation saves lives.”

While 7 judges ruled in favor, the court also had 4 giving dissenting opinions as well, with the judges upholding the second amendment, noting their use in matters of self-defense, and saying how if the ban was applied nationwide it would lead to half of all existing magazines being confiscated.

“Large-capacity magazines are commonly used by Americans for self-defense,” wrote Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay in a dissent. “Indeed, these magazines are lawfully owned by millions of people nationwide and come standard on the most popular firearms sold today. If California’s law applied nationwide, it would require confiscating half of all existing firearms magazines in this country.”

Supporters, detractors react to court ruling

Ban supporters celebrated the news, led by top lawmakers who have stood by the ban since it was first approved by voters in 2016.