Link

Attorney General Bonta Secures Victory in Lawsuit Challenging California’s Ban on Large-Capacity Magazines

Tuesday, November 30, 2021
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov
OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta applauded a decision by an en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a case that challenged the state’s ban on the acquisition and possession of large-capacity magazines (LCMs). In a 7-4 decision in Duncan v. Bonta, the Court reversed a district court ruling, and confirmed that California’s restrictions impose only a very small burden on individuals’ ability to defend themselves while, at the same time, reducing the lethality of mass shootings and saving lives.

“Today’s decision is a victory for public safety in California,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Gun violence is an epidemic in this country, but laws like our ban on large-capacity magazines are commonsense ways to prevent this violence, including devastating mass shootings. I’m thankful to the Court for giving this case a second look, and confirming what we know to be true: our laws keep Californians safe while allowing law-abiding gun owners to exercise their constitutional rights.”

LCMs are firearm magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. They pose a substantial threat to the public and law enforcement because they allow shooters to fire scores of rounds from the same firearm in a short period of time without needing to reload.

In California, it has been illegal to manufacture, import, keep or offer for sale, give, or lend LCMs since 2000. It has been illegal to purchase and receive them since 2013. Proposition 63, which California voters passed in 2016, added a ban on the possession of LCMs. In 2017, the district court enjoined the possession ban from taking effect, pending resolution of the Duncan lawsuit. However, the ban on the sale, purchase, manufacture, importation, or acquisition of LCMs remained in effect during the appeal.

In a final, supplemental brief filed in June, Attorney General Bonta argued that California’s restrictions on LCMs respect the public’s Second Amendment right to defend themselves while advancing the state's interests in combating gun violence and reducing the number of deaths and injuries resulting from mass shootings.

In its decision today, the Court agreed, stating: “In the past half-century, large-capacity magazines have been used in about three-quarters of gun massacres with 10 or more deaths and in 100 percent of gun massacres with 20 or more deaths, and more than twice as many people have been killed or injured in mass shootings that involved a large-capacity magazine as compared with mass shootings that involved a smaller-capacity magazine.” The Court went on to say that the ban on LCMs “reasonably supports California’s effort to reduce the devastating damage wrought by mass shootings.”

Attorney General Bonta is committed to keeping Californians safe, and does so by promoting and defending commonsense gun laws at the state and federal level. In September, Attorney General Bonta led a coalition of state attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court defending New York’s law regulating when individuals may obtain a license to carry firearms in public. In August, Attorney General Bonta supported a Proposed Rule by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives that would help regulate ghost guns by clarifying the agency’s definition of what qualifies as a firearm. Attorney General Bonta has also urged Californians to use the state’s Gun Violence Restraining Order law to help keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others. Attorney General Bonta is currently defending the state’s assault weapons ban.

A copy of the opinion is HERE.

I have said this before, we need to have some group that represents the handicap fight this. By having everyone limited to lower capacity magazines can and will be deadly to people that are handicapped with only 1 limb to use the firearm as they will be even more at a disadvantage in trying to defend themselves and when trying to change out a magazine. God Bless

As a Californian,

As an American, Bring it bitches, SCOTUS here we come.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
As a Californian,

As an American, Bring it bitches, SCOTUS here we come.

Unfortunately, given that there is no longer a circuit split on this issue, it is likely SCOTUS will decline to take an appeal.

quote:

confirmed that California’s restrictions impose only a very small burden on individuals’ ability to defend themselves while, at the same time, reducing the lethality of mass shootings and saving lives.

Just to be clear LCMs (standard capacity mags) somehow have different properties depending on if the gun is being used defensively or by a mad man? In a good guys hand they don't increase ability to defend yourself, but in a bad guys hands they make it easier to kill people. Sounds confusing, I'm going to need someone to explain Schrödinger's magazine to me.

I'm wondering how the opinion squares acknowledging a "minimal burden" with "shall not be infringed".

Seems like people don't really pay attention to the law in California, why should gun owners?

SCOTUS isn't going near this.

quote:

Originally posted by AKSuperDually:
Seems like people don't really pay attention to the law in California, why should gun owners?

Part of the opinion:

“The statute outlaws no weapon, but only limits the size of the magazine that may be used with firearms,” the judges ruled in the 7-4 decision.

The majority reasoned that “the record demonstrates that 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 ... that the limitation saves lives.”

What a way around deciding on merits.

Time for the US Marshals in the 9th Circus to use 10 round mags. They're just as good as regular mags and switching saves lives.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
Unfortunately, given that there is no longer a circuit split on this issue, it is likely SCOTUS will decline to take an appeal.

Sigh, you’re probably right.

Oh, well. It was a nice dream while it lasted.

I’m so sick of this bias pervading our court and legislative system.

A court should render unbiased judgements, perhaps with some allowance for interpretation. Decisions should be made that are right, even if they are not personally agreeable. But to clearly allow bias to affect a decision is unethical and not right.

I’m nauseous and sick to death. If they died tomorrow, not a tear would be shed.

ETA:

The Court went on to say that the ban on LCMs “reasonably supports California’s effort to reduce the devastating damage wrought by mass shootings.”

There should be a new challenge to this ruling if either of these things occur: mass shootings continue to occur with standard mags in CA and/or mass shootings still happen with equal devastation using limited cap mags. Either proves that the ruling is ineffective.

quote:

Originally posted by berto:
Time for the US Marshals in the 9th Circus to use 10 round mags. They're just as good as regular mags and switching saves lives.

Well, I'll get flamed for saying this, but all LEO's in CA should abide by the same restrictions as the rest of us, and that includes the damn roster.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

Originally posted by berto:
Time for the US Marshals in the 9th Circus to use 10 round mags. They're just as good as regular mags and switching saves lives.

Well, I'll get flamed for saying this, but all LEO's in CA should abide by the same restrictions as the rest of us, and that includes the damn roster.

Yes. If certain guns are too dangerous for the average person to have, or standard capacity magazines, or whatever, then the police have no business using something so dangerous either. They claim ARs and standard cap magazines are weapons of war and have no place on our streets and in our homes, well fuck you, that goes for the cops and your security too. Lead by example.

Gotta love the Boone County IN Sheriff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjnsBH9jGxc

No difference in shot times for 2x15, 3x10, or 5x6 mags. Self defense will suffer because we can't practically carry a lot of mags. But a mass shooter who comes with a bag full of mags will be just as deadly.

It's a shame cases like this are determined by politics and conjecture rather than facts. The original circuit court decision was very well worded and consistent.

Just another of their many rulings that will eventually be overturned.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

Originally posted by berto:
Time for the US Marshals in the 9th Circus to use 10 round mags. They're just as good as regular mags and switching saves lives.

Well, I'll get flamed for saying this, but all LEO's in CA should abide by the same restrictions as the rest of us, and that includes the damn roster.

Not many of us will flame you for saying that. In fact I’d bet your opinion is shared by the majority on this forum including most LE.

I'm only surprised that it took this long to overturn the decision and uphold California's ban on standard-capacity magazines.

Unless and until our worthless, gutless supreme court finally steps in and puts an end to this nonsense, states will continue to infringe on the 2nd.