US Court Strikes Down California’s Ban on Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazines

Pixabay
image_pdf
  • Save
image_print
  • Save

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit threw out California’s ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold 10 or more bullets, saying the law violates the US Constitution’s protection of the right to bear firearms. The court ruling says that “even the laudable goal of reducing gun violence must comply with the Constitution. California’s near-categorical ban of LCMs infringes on the fundamental right to self-defense. It criminalizes the possession of half of all magazines in America today.” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has the option of appealing the ruling to the US Supreme Court. -GEG

A federal appeals court on Friday struck down California’s ban on large-capacity magazines (LCMs), labeling it a violation of the Second Amendment in a consequential 2-1 split decision ruling.

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals maintained that the state’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition breached the core right of law-abiding citizens to self-defend.

The majority said that the ammunition is “typically used for lawful purposes, and are not ‘unusual arms’ that would fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment.”

“Armed self-defense is a fundamental right rooted in tradition and the text of the Second Amendment,” Judge Kenneth Lee wrote for the panel’s majority, consisting of himself and Judge Consuelo Callahan.

Lee specifically noted that the scope of California’s ban “is so sweeping that half of all magazines in America are now unlawful to own in California.”

Judge Barbara Lynn, however, countered in a dissenting opinion that the California ban didn’t represent a violation to residents’ Second Amendment rights.

“The difference between using a handgun versus a rifle for self-defense, for example, is much more significant than the difference between using a magazine that holds eleven rounds versus a magazine that holds ten rounds,” Lynn wrote. “For this reason, the prohibition on LCMs is more analogous to a restriction on how someone exercises their Second Amendment rights, by restricting the number of bullets a person may shoot from one firearm without reloading.”

In 2017, Virginia Duncan and others who owned LCMs filed suit against California Attorney General Xavier Becerra two months before legislation prohibiting the possession of LCMS went into effect, saying it violated their Second Amendment rights.

A district court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, saying that California’s ” ‘solution’ for preventing a mass shooting exacts a high toll on the everyday freedom of law-abiding citizens.” Becerra appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The ruling highlights the divide in the court system over how to treat gun control laws. The Supreme Court recently declined to take up 10 cases related to the Second Amendment, over the expressed concerns of some conservative justices.

Becerra’s office, who could appeal the judgment to the Supreme Court, told CNN in a statement they are reviewing the decision “with the goal of protecting public safety.”

Read full article here…

Visit our Classified ads.

Check out our Classified ads at the bottom of this page.

Recent stories & commentary

  • Save
Health

California Man Pressured to Take Covid Vax Dies, Blows the Whistle from the Grave on the Killer Vax

November 21, 2021 Covid Vaccine Injuries 8

Mike Granata wrote, “I wished I would have never gotten vaccinated. If you are not vaccinated, don’t do it unless you are ready to suffer and die.” He revealed that that the medical profession is hiding the true number of deaths from Covid vaccines and that nurses begged him to reveal the truth about the dangerous vaccines to the public.

Classifieds

For classified advertising rates and terms, click here. The appearance of ads on this site does not signify endorsement by the publisher. We do not attempt to verify the accuracy of statements made therein or vouch for the integrity of advertisers. However, we will investigate complaints from readers and remove any message we find to be misleading or that promotes anything fraudulent, illegal, or unethical.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
1 Comment
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ed
Ed
1 year ago

If it goes to the SC then you have to watch out for Roberts and his ‘swing’ crew. I don’t trust Gorsuch either. He used to belong to the CFR.