SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday threw out California’s ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines, saying the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s protection of the right to bear firearms.
Join our WhatsApp groupSubscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
“Even well-intentioned laws must pass constitutional muster,” appellate Judge Kenneth Lee wrote for the panel’s majority. California’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets “strikes at the core of the Second Amendment — the right to armed self-defense.”
He noted that California passed the law “in the wake of heart-wrenching and highly publicized mass shootings,” but said that isn’t enough to justify a ban whose scope “is so sweeping that half of all magazines in America are now unlawful to own in California.”
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s office said it is reviewing the decision.
“Until further proceedings in the courts, the stay on the injunction issued by the district court remains in place,” his office said in a statement. “The Attorney General remains committed to using every tool possible to defend California’s gun safety laws and keep our communities safe.”
Becerra did not immediately say if he would ask a larger 11-judge appellate panel to reconsider the ruling by the three judges, or if he would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
He also did not immediately say if the state would seek a delay of the ruling to prevent an immediate buying spree if the lower court lifts its stay.
California Rifle & Pistol Association attorney Chuck Michel called it “a huge victory” for gun owners “and the right to choose to own a firearm to defend your family,” while a group that favors firearms restrictions called it ”dangerous” and expects it will be overturned.
The ruling has national implications because other states have similar restrictions, though it immediately applies only to Western states under the appeals court’s jurisdiction.
Gun rights groups have been trying to get such cases before the nation’s high court now that it has a more conservative majority.
Aside from the magazine ban itself, Michel and the unaffiliated Second Amendment Foundation said the case has legal implications for other gun restrictions should it reach the justices because it could allow the court to clarify an obscure legal debate over what standard of review should be used.
“The Supreme Court seems inclined to do away with the complicated subjective tests that many courts have wrongly applied in Second Amendment cases, in favor of a clearer more objective ‘originalist’ approach that considers the text, history and tradition of a law to determine what infringements might be tolerated,” Michel said in an email.
Friday’s ruling was a fractured decision partly because of that issue: Two of the three judges voted to toss out the state’s ban, while the third judge dissented.
U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Lynn of Texas, who had been named the third judge on the appellate panel, said the majority’s ruling conflicts with decisions in six other federal appellate courts across the nation, and with a 2015 ruling by a different panel of the 9th Circuit itself. She said she would have upheld California’s law based on that precedent.
“This ruling is an extreme outlier” given those earlier decisions, said Eric Tirschwell, managing director for Everytown Law, the litigation team affiliated with Everytown for Gun Safety that favors firearms restrictions. “We expect an en banc panel will rehear the case and correct this erroneous, dangerous, and out-of-step decision.”
Friday’s decision upholds a 2017 ruling by San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who blocked a new law that would have barred gun owners from possessing magazines holding more than 10 bullets.
But he and the appeals court went further by declaring unconstitutional a state law that had prohibited buying or selling such magazines since 2000. That law had let those who had the magazines before then keep them, but barred new sales or imports.
Don’t like guns? Get a constitutional amendment passed!
Hooray! Now we can have more mass shootings! MAGA- More American Graves Around.
This is surprising good news. The 9th Circuit Court is usually very liberal. Of course, very few Yidden are running out to buy guns anytime soon, but given what our country has started to look like lately, with police basically useless and citizens’ rights and lives at risk, the “pas b’saloi” to get a powerful weapon if needed is a bit comforting.
All I want to ask is why do people need these High-Capacity Magazines?
What is the use of these High-Capacity Magazines?
Hunting game?
Or hunting innocent people
Protecting ones self from the criminals you and the rest of the democrat support who aren’t limited to non high capacity magazines as they are criminals and don’t follow the laws.
The 9th Circuit has thankfully gone conservative unddr President Trump’s 1st term with the hundreds of Judges he appointed.
The Court correctly ruled that banning high magazine clips were unconstitutional under thd 2nd Amendment. Contrary to what some would have u believe, the Founders of the United States were fearful of a tyrannical Government taking over and disarming its Citizens. Our right to bear arms is go protect us from a rogue Government; not for killing defenseless animals for sport!
What’s the difference? Only in liberal states are the magazines limited. Criminals will purchase them else where. What you are accomplishing is allowing law abiding citizens to purchase these magazines to have at least as much rights as a criminal.
Most commentators are ignorant of gun laws.
1) Automatic weapons are illegal and is not under discussion!
2) “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” The powers of the federal government comes from the people. The only way for the military to legally carry any type of weapon is because the people have that right and authorizes the government and its dependents to use said rights. If you want to abolish the second amendment, technically, the people will no longer to be able to empower the federal government from using those rights too. Most weapons, automatic, military grade, etc are created by private companies. Why aren’t they arrested? Because they have the right to own them. And yes, citizens can own a nuclear weapon if they can afford one (and no, i do agree that is crazy). David Hahn built a reactor in his backyard, while the EPA dismantled it for safety reasons, he was never charged with any offense.