In layman’s terms: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit says Second Amendment doesn’t protect magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds.
On March 20, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals finally issued a decision in the California magazine ban case and ridiculously concluded that the Second Amendment allows the banning of magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds. The good news is the case is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, and in a rare display of transparency, there’s even a video from one of the circuit judges.
Almost a year to the day after it was argued in district court, the en banc appeals court issued its decision in Duncan v. Bonta, holding that “…a California law banning the possession of large-capacity magazines comports with the Second Amendment…” It reversed the district court’s conclusion, and remanded with a judgment in favor of the Attorney General of California.
For clarification, California considers a “high-capacity” magazine to be anything holding more than 10 rounds.
“This incorrect ruling is not surprising considering the inclination of many 9th Circuit judges to improperly limit the Second Amendment’s protections,” said Chuck Michel, President & General Counsel of the California Rifle & Pistol Association. “We will seek review from the Supreme Court immediately. That court has already vacated an incorrect ruling from the 9th Circuit in this case once, and we expect that the justices will do that again. It is high time for the Supreme Court to reign in lower courts that are not following the Supreme Court’s mandates as laid out in the Heller and Bruen cases, and this case presents an opportunity for the high court to do that emphatically.”
Judge Graber, writing for the majority, begins his opinion, not with the text of the Second Amendment, but with a clearly biased underpinning referencing mass shootings, which he says, “…are devastating events for the victims, their families, and the broader community.”
The contrived definition of a “high-capacity magazine” is itself a legal tool that gun-haters have used to get around the Second Amendment. It’s a wholly manufactured concept given that the standard-capacity magazines that come with firearms often hold 15, 17, 21 or even 30 rounds depending on design and size.
Yet again, an appeals court references Bruen, and then wholly ignores the principles therein:
Employing the methodology announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), the en banc court concluded that California’s law comported with the Second Amendment for two independent reasons. First, the text of the Second Amendment does not encompass the right to possess large-capacity magazines because large-capacity magazines are neither “arms” nor protected accessories.
When one considers that there was no such thing as a “high-capacity” magazine at the time of the founding, it’s also odd to arrive at the conclusion that there’s historical precedent for it to be banned.
In what might be a first, Circuit Court Judge VanDyke (who is also quite knowledgeable about firearms) recorded his dissent on video from his chambers for YouTube. His dissent was pragmatic, realistic and based on common sense. It was refreshing to see a Judge handle and explain the components and operations of a firearm – something many of his peers are likely unable to do.
