Court Strikes Down California Ban On Large Capacity Magazines



In a major blow for gun safety advocates and California officials, a federal appeals court on Friday ruled that the state’s ban on large capacity magazines is unconstitutional.

A Colt AR-15, now legal with a bayonet mount, flash suppressor, collapsible stock and a high … [+]

Photo by Thomas Cooper/Getty Images


Crucial quote

“In the wake of heart-wrenching and highly publicized mass shootings, the state of California barred its citizens from owning so-called “large capacity magazines” (LCMs) that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. But even well-intentioned laws must pass constitutional muster,” wrote Judge Kenneth Lee, who was appointed by President Donald Trump.

Chief critics

In her dissent, U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Lynn argued the decision defies precedent from six other federal appellate courts across the country, as well as with a 2015 ruling by a different panel of the 9th Circuit. She also argued it doesn’t violate Second Amendment rights, and doesn’t prevent the use of handguns or other weapons in self defense. Newsom, too, defended the law at a press conference Friday, saying the majority of Californians supported it when the state approved a ballot measure affirming the ban in 2016.

“Weapons of war-like large capacity magazines-have no place on our streets and sidewalks,” Newsom said. “We cannot and will not give an inch to the @NRA, or anyone else, who wants to weaken or invalidate these laws.”

Key background

California isn’t the only state that has a ban on large capacity magazines. Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Vermont also ban them. Gun rights advocates have also filed legal challenges against those laws as well, though the California decision is the first from an appellate court striking down such a law.

What’s next

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra could appeal the decision to the Supreme Court or to another panel on the 9th circuit.

Further reading

Read the full decision and dissent here.