Ninth Circuit upholds California's large-capacity magazine ban

(CN) — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday in favor of California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta, upholding the state’s ban on large-capacity magazines and reversing a lower court’s decision that had deemed the law unconstitutional.

In the case of Virginia Duncan et al. v. Rob Bonta , the en banc court determined that California’s law banning possession of large-capacity magazines complies with the Second Amendment and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment for the state’s Attorney General.

The appellate court provided two independent reasons for its conclusion. First, it determined that “the text of the Second Amendment does not encompass the right to possess large-capacity magazines because they are neither ‘arms’ nor protected accessories.”

“Large-capacity magazines are optional accessories to firearms, and firearms operate as intended without a large-capacity magazine,” the court explained. “Possession of a large-capacity magazine therefore falls outside the text of the Second Amendment.”

Second, the court reasoned that even if the Second Amendment did cover such accessories, “California’s ban falls within the Nation’s tradition of protecting innocent persons by prohibiting especially dangerous uses of weapons and by regulating components necessary to the firing of a firearm.”

The ruling reverses a controversial 2023 decision by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who had struck down the ban in a strongly worded 71-page order. Benitez, a George W. Bush appointee, characterized the law as an “extreme ban” that curtailed Californians’ Second Amendment rights.

“In so doing, the state denies a citizen the federal constitutional right to use common weapons of their own choosing for self-defense,” Benitez wrote in his order. “There have been, and there will be, times where many more than 10 rounds are needed to stop attackers, yet under this statute, the state says ’too bad.'”

The district court ruling had been immediately appealed by Bonta, who defended the state’s interest in regulating weapons accessories that can contribute to mass casualties.

“This commonsense restriction on how many rounds a gunman can fire before they must pause to reload has been identified as a critical intervention to limit a lone shooter’s capacity to turn shootings into mass casualty attacks. Let me be clear, this law saves lives," Bonta said via a press release. “Today’s ruling is an important win — not only in this case, but in our broader efforts to protect California communities from gun violence.”

The Ninth Circuit’s decision was not unanimous. Several judges filed dissenting opinions, including U.S. Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson, a Donald Trump appointee, who argued that “the majority’s decision flouted Bruen and spurned statutory procedure for en banc proceedings.”

Also dissenting were fellow Trump appointees U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay, U.S. Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson and U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, as well as George W. Bush appointee U.S. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta.

“California’s magazine ban is presumptively unconstitutional because the plain text of the Second Amendment protects the possession of magazines capable of feeding more than 10 rounds,” Bumatay said. “Nothing in the text, or the country’s historical understanding of the Second Amendment, warrants California’s magazine ban.”

VanDyke’s dissent included a controversial video showing him handling handguns and explaining their mechanics, which U.S. Senior Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon criticized in her concurring opinion. The Bill Clinton appointee argued that VanDyke had “in essence appointed himself as an expert witness in this case, providing a factual presentation with the express aim of convincing the readers of his view of the facts without complying with any of the procedural safeguards that usually apply to experts and their testimony.”

In its majority opinion, the court emphasized the historical context of firearms regulation, noting that “legislatures throughout our Nation’s history have banned especially dangerous uses of weapons once the threat to innocent persons has become clear.” The court cited past regulations such as gunpowder storage laws and trap gun bans as examples.

The case represents a significant victory for California’s gun control efforts following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen , which established a new test requiring gun regulations to be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

“When the executive branch disagrees with a court ruling, the answer isn’t to ignore it — it’s to appeal to a higher court,” Governor Gavin Newsom said in a statement. “We did that. We won. That’s how law and order words.”

California’s large-capacity magazine ban, first enacted in 2000, prohibits magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. While New Jersey became the first state to regulate detachable magazines in 1990, several other states have since implemented similar restrictions.

Follow @JeremyYurow