SAN FRANCISCO – The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a lower court ruling striking down a California gun law banning magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
“Even well-intentioned laws must pass constitutional muster,” the Court panel ruled. “California’s near-categorical ban of LCMs [large-capacity magazines] infringes on the fundamental right to self-defense. It criminalizes the possession of half of all magazines in America today."
The law would have made it a crime to possess magazines that come standard in Glocks, Berettas and other handguns that are “staples of self-defense,” the Court said. The law “runs afoul of the Second Amendment."
In its ruling, the Court also pointed out that California has the ability to curb gun violence through waiting periods and many other limitations.
“But the Second Amendment limits the state’s ability to second-guess a citizen’s choice of arms if it imposes a substantial burden on her right to self-defense,” the panel concluded.
In a statement, the California Attorney General's Office said it is reviewing the decision.
“The Attorney General remains committed to using every tool possible to defend California's gun safety laws and keep our communities safe,” the statement said.
The California Rifle & Pistol Association, a plaintiff in the action challenging the law, praised the ruling.
“Today’s decision ... is a major victory for the Second Amendment, both in California and across the country,” Chuck Michel, the organization’s president and general counsel, said in a release issued on the association's website. “After years of fighting, the Court decided in favor of our plaintiffs’ challenge against the state’s ban on standard-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.”
The ruling “may present the Supreme Court with an opportunity to set things straight on the underlying issue of what the standard of review test should be when considering any Second Amendment challenge,” Michel said. Instead of “'complicated subjective tests,' the Supreme Court may opt for a "clearer more objective 'originalist' approach that considers the text, history and tradition of a law to determine what infringements might be tolerated."