A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ended California’s 2016 ban on possessing high-capacity ammunition magazines Friday in a decision that quickly spawned cheers and condemnation on opposite sides of the gun control debate.
In a majority opinion released Friday, Appellate Judge Kenneth Lee wrote that the state’s near-categorical ban of magazines with more than 10 bullets violates the constitutional right to bear arms to the extent that it “strikes at the core of the Second Amendment.”
“California’s law imposes a substantial burden on this right to self-defense,” wrote Lee, who was appointed by President Donald Trump. “Law-abiding citizens, regardless of their training and track record, must alter or turn over to the state any LCMs that they may have legally owned for years — or face up to a year in jail.”
Judge Consuelo M. Callahan, a George W. Bush appointee, joined Lee in the decision. Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn of Texas, a Bill Clinton appointee, dissented.
Starting in 2000, it became illegal to manufacture, import or sell large-capacity magazines in California. But in 2016, as cities across the U.S. reeled from mass shootings, the state Legislature made possessing large-capacity magazines of more than 10 rounds illegal. Californians strengthened the provisions of that law with jail time a few months later when they passed Proposition 63.
Friday’s decision upholds a 2017 ruling by San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who blocked Proposition 63.
Broadening that original 2000 law effectively rendered about half of available weapons illegal across the state, Lee said, even though such magazines are not unusual nationwide. And while he acknowledged the history of gun violence, Lee added that “even well-intentioned laws must pass constitutional muster.”
“Magazines enjoy Second Amendment protection for a simple reason: Without a magazine, many weapons would be useless, including ‘quintessential’ self defense weapons like the handgun,” Lee wrote.
Dissenting Judge Lynn meanwhile said that the ban is not so wide-ranging as to restrict the possession of magazines in general, meaning it does not place a substantial burden on the Second Amendment. She added that six other district courts nationwide have upheld similar laws.
Prominent gun control organizations decried the decision en masse Friday. Jonathan Lowy, chief counsel and legal vice president of the nonprofit Brady United, said in a statement that the opinion showed a “wildly” incorrect interpretation of the Second Amendment.
“There is no constitutional right to a high capacity magazine and it is perfectly feasible for a state to ban them, as they are useful for mass killers,” Lowy said. “The Second Amendment does not empower private citizens to arm themselves with weapons of war, or override the public’s right to live, or prevent the duly elected legislature from enacting laws that preserve public safety and restrict common tools for mass killers.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom, when asked about the decision during a press conference Friday, said he had not yet read the opinion itself but that “the overwhelming majority of Californians agreed” with Proposition 63.
“We’ve long advanced efforts to focus not just on guns, but also focus on keeping those dangerous components out of the hands of people who should otherwise not be afforded that fundamental privilege slash right,” Newsom said. “Large capacity magazine clips, with respect, I think fall into that category.”
Gun industry lobbyists and the National Rifle Association, however — which pushed for the initial lawsuit that led to Friday’s decision — touted the opinion as a victory and partially credited Lee’s connection to the White House.
“The judge who authored the opinion in this case was appointed by President Trump,” said spokesperson Amy Hunter. “That means everyone who voted pro-gun in 2016 played a role in this significant win.”
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra did not immediately say Friday if he would ask the full appellate court to reconsider the ruling by the three judges, or if he would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, nor whether the state would seek a delay of the ruling to prevent an immediate buying spree.
Sales are currently on hold based on a stay by the lower court and cannot immediately resume.
The Associated Press and staff writer Robert Salonga contributed to this report.
