**Article Updated August 18th 2020! Status is always changing, refer to latest information at top of page.
New Ruling – Ban on LCM Unconstitutional
“A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday threw out California’s ban on large capacity magazines (LCMs), saying the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s protection of the right to bear firearms.”
The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs challenging California Government Code § 31310, which bans possession of large-capacity magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition; and held that the ban violated the Second Amendment.
The Ninth Circuit employs a two-prong inquiry to determine whether firearm regulations violate the Second Amendment: (1) whether the law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment; and (2) if so, what level of scrutiny to apply to the regulation. United states v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127, 1136 (9th Cir. 2013)
The panel held that under the first prong of the test, Cal. Penal Code § 32310 burdened protected conduct. First, the panel held that firearm magazines are protected arms under the Second Amendment. Second, the panel held that LCMs are commonly owned and typically used for lawful purposes, and are not “unusual arms” that would fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Third, the panel held that LCM prohibitions are not longstanding regulations and do not enjoy a presumption of lawfulness. Fourth, the panel held that there was no persuasive historical evidence in the record showing LCM possession fell outside the ambit of Second Amendment protection.
Proceeding to prong two of the inquiry, the panel held that strict scrutiny was the appropriate standard to apply. First, the panel held that Cal. Penal Code § 32310 struck at the core right of law-abiding citizens to self-defend by banning LCM possession within the home. Second, the panel held that Section 32310’s near-categorical ban of LCMs substantially burdened core Second Amendment rights. Third, the panel held that decisions in other circuits were distinguishable. Fourth, the panel held that this circuit’s decision in Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2015), did not obligate the panel to apply intermediate scrutiny.
The panel held that Cal. Penal Code § 32310 did not survive strict scrutiny review. First, the panel held that the state interests advanced here were compelling: preventing and mitigating gun violence. Second, the panel held that Section 32310 was not narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling state interests it purported to serve because the state’s chosen method – a statewide blanket ban on possession everywhere and for nearly everyone – was not the least restrictive means of achieving the compelling interests.
The panel held that even if intermediate scrutiny were to apply, Cal. Penal Code § 32310 would still fail. The panel held that while the interests expressed by the state qualified as “important,” the means chosen to advance those interests were not substantially related to their service.
Chief District Judge Lynn dissented, and would reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Judge Lynn wrote that the majority opinion conflicted with this Circuit’s precedent in Fyock, and with decisions in all the six sister Circuits that addressed the Second Amendment issue presented here. Judge Lynn would hold that intermediate scrutiny applies, and Cal. Penal Code § 32310 satisfies that standard.
Update Expected by August 28th
It is still currently illegal to purchase LCM’s in California at this point. Attorney General Becerra has not yet given an indication if he will appeal, but most legal and firearm experts have said that it is likely. Becerra will be limited to who he can appeal to, either a larger 11 judge appellate panel or the U.S. Supreme Court itself.
A decision by the California Attorney General is expected by August 28th.
See other details from this latest ruling here.
Information below is from previous rulings dating back to March 29th 2019. The Ban was reinstated April 5th 2019, and was just recently overturned as decribed above. Below is the information on the previous ruling.
High-capacity gun magazines, well to be correct, standard capacity magazines for all style of firearms were made legal to purchase in the state of California under a ruling by a federal judge Friday March 29th 2019*
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez wrote, “Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts,” as he declared unconstitutional the law that would have banned possessing any magazines holding more than 10 bullets.
He ruled that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “arms” under the U.S. Constitution, and that the California law “burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state.”
Since 2000, California law has prohibited buying or selling “high-capacity” magazines.
In 2016, the Legislature and voters approved a law removing that provision. The California arm of the National Rifle Association sued and Benitez sided with the group’s argument that banning the magazines infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Is this For Real? YES!
So what this means for now is that California citizens can legally purchase high capacity magazines for their rifles and pistols like gun owners in every other free state!
Many online vendors like Brownell’s are shipping magazines California, get them while you can!
Does The Ruling Apply to Just Rifle Magazines?
No! This applies to all magazines, including high capacity pistol magazines like this Glock 33 rounder!
A Word of Caution
Setting aside the effects of the Benitez ruling, it’s important to realize some things have NOT changed:
Can you use large capacity magazines in my ‘featureless’ centerfire semiautomatic rifles?? Yes.
Can I use large capacity magazines in my RAW -Registered Assault Weapon(s)? Yes.
IF YOU REGISTERED, the registered guns do NOT have a ‘fixed magazine’. If you registered a ‘bullet-buttoned’ gun, under the new law that is NOT a ‘fixed magazine’ gun.
Can I use LCMs in my gun that has a new magazine locking device (open action to release mag)? No.
32310 (the narrow subject of Judge Benitez’s ruling in Duncan) is about just crimes with magazines; the definition of large-capacity magazine is independent of 32310.
‘Assault weapon’ law is a different piece – in this case: PC 30515 — And 30515 does not even use the term ‘large capacity magazine’ – it says “a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.”
Quote:
|
30515. (a) Notwithstanding Section 30510, “assault weapon” also means any of the following: … (2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. |
Your new mag locking device creates a ‘fixed magazine’ – you probably did that to avoid registering.
Using a LCM in a fixed magazine device creates an ‘assault weapon’. That’s a felony. Do not do that.
Conclusion
Enjoy your taste of freedom California! Don’t forget to check out Brownells and other vendors now shipping freedom to California.