The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that California’s ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds is constitutional, overturning a previous ruling by a San Diego federal judge who found the state law violated the Second Amendment.
In a 7-4 decision authored by senior circuit Judge Susan Graber, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, the majority wrote that “a large-capacity magazine has little function in armed self-defense, but its use by mass shooters has exacerbated the harm of those horrific events.”
The majority ruled the California law did not violate the Second Amendment in part because the magazines are optional accessories, not arms protected by the Constitution, and that firearms can operate as intended without them. They also ruled the law conforms with the Second Amendment because it “falls neatly within the Nation’s traditions of protecting innocent persons by prohibiting especially dangerous uses of weapons.”
Among three dissenting opinions, all authored by judges appointed to the 9th Circuit during President Donald Trump’s first term, was one authored by Judge Lawrence VanDyke, who included in his dissent a video of himself operating firearms in his chambers. He said part of the video’s purpose was to show his colleagues in the majority why their ruling that magazines are only firearm accessories “is inconsistent with reality.” The seven judges who signed on to the majority opinion also signed a concurring opinion calling the video “wildly improper.”
While gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds have long been illegal to buy, sell or manufacture in California, in 2016 California voters approved a law that made mere ownership of such magazines unlawful. The law has been mired in legal challenges ever since.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office has defended the state law against those challenges, celebrated Thursday’s ruling. “Let me be clear, this law saves lives,” Bonta said in a statement. “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.”
The California Rifle & Pistol Association has led the legal challenges against the law along with several individual gun owners who have argued that the large-capacity magazine ban violates their constitutional right to self-defense.
Chuck Michel, president and general counsel of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, promised Thursday that his organization would appeal the 9th Circuit’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“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,” Michel said in a statement.
Indeed, Thursday’s ruling was the latest in a dizzying, yearslong legal battle that has moved from a U.S. district court in San Diego to the Supreme Court and back again.
