In the case Duncan v Becerra a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit COurt of Appeals rules that the ban on possession of magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition violates the 2nd Amendment.
From a summary prepared by the Court:
The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs challenging California Government Code § 31310, which bans possession of large-capacity magazines (“LCMs”) that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition; and held that the ban violated the Second Amendment.The Ninth Circuit employs a two-prong inquiry to determine whether firearm regulations violate the Second Amendment: (1) whether the law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment; and (2) if so, what level of scrutiny to apply to the regulation. United states v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127, 1136 (9th Cir. 2013)
The panel held that under the first prong of the test, Cal. Penal Code § 32310 burdened protected conduct. First, the panel held that firearm magazines are protected arms under the Second Amendment. Second, the panel held that LCMs are commonly owned and typically used for lawful purposes, and are not “unusual arms” that would fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Third, the panel held that LCM prohibitions are not longstanding regulations and do not enjoy a presumption of lawfulness. Fourth, the panel held that there was no persuasive historical evidence in the record showing LCM possession fell outside the ambit of Second Amendment protection.
Proceeding to prong two of the inquiry, the panel held that strict scrutiny was the appropriate standard to apply. First, the panel held that Cal. Penal Code § 32310 struck at the core right of law-abiding citizens to self-defend by banning LCM possession within the home. Second, the panel held that Section 32310’s near-categorical ban of LCMs substantially burdened core Second Amendment rights. Third, the panel held that decisions in other circuits were distinguishable. Fourth, the panel held that this circuit’s decision in Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2015), did not obligate the panel to apply intermediate scrutiny.
The panel held that Cal. Penal Code § 32310 did not survive strict scrutiny review. First, the panel held that the state interests advanced here were compelling: preventing and mitigating gun violence. Second, the panel held that Section 32310 was not narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling state interests it purported to serve because the state’s chosen method – a statewide blanket ban on possession everywhere and for nearly everyone – was not the least restrictive means of achieving the compelling interests.
The panel held that even if intermediate scrutiny were to apply, Cal. Penal Code § 32310 would still fail. The panel held that while the interests expressed by the state qualified as “important,” the means chosen to advance those interests were not substantially related to their service. Chief District Judge Lynn dissented, and would reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Judge Lynn wrote that the majority opinion conflicted with this Circuit’s precedent in Fyock, and with decisions in all the six sister Circuits that addressed the Second Amendment issue presented here. Judge Lynn would hold that intermediate scrutiny applies, and Cal. Penal Code § 32310 satisfies that standard.
The decision is at the link above.
The decision will no doubt be appealed to the full Court or to SCOTUS.
Nice is overrated
"It's every freedom-loving individual's duty to lie to the government." Airsoftguy, June 29, 2018
Posts: 29275 | Location: Loudoun County, Virginia | Registered: May 17, 2006
Originally posted by Sig2340: The decision will no doubt be appealed to the full Court or to SCOTUS.
I would say and to SCOTUS.
But this is mildly encouraging.
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system,,,, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living." -- Seneca the Younger, Roman Stoic philosopher "The dominant media is no more ``mainstream`` than leftists are liberals." -- me
This past February 25, 2021, the federal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals announced it will reconsider the panel’s ruling that declared the ban unconstitutional. A new hearing would be before a larger 11-judge panel.
A few days ago a 22-state coalition petitioned the 9th Circuit to uphold the original panel's ruling.
Is the 9th Circuit Court conservative or liberal again? Hard to keep track.
Trump managed to replace a couple of the more liberal judges with more conservative judges on the 9th Circuit ... but when it comes to judges you can just never tell. All depends on the skeletons in their closet and who gets to them.
___________________________________________________________ In a nation where anything goes ... everything eventually will.
Posts: 47 | Location: South Carolina | Registered: September 18, 2020
My guess? En banc they will apply strict scrutiny, say that there's a compelling government interest and that the limit is the least restrictive means and tailored narrowly, which means the 10 round limit will stick, then SCOTUS will deny cert. One of the few times I would /love/ to be wrong.