California has the authority to ban large-capacity ammunition magazines, a federal appellate court ruled Thursday, reversing a previous decision that found the state law unconstitutional under the strict, history-minded limits on gun control measures recently established by the Supreme Court.
Writing for the 11-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Circuit Judge Susan P. Graber found that the state’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds fell in line with other historical weapons restrictions in that it “restricts an especially dangerous feature of semiautomatic firearms — the ability to use a large-capacity magazine — while allowing all other uses of those firearms.”
“So far as California’s law is concerned, persons may own as many bullets, magazines, and firearms as they desire; may fire as many rounds as they like; and may carry their bullets, magazines, and firearms wherever doing so is permissible. The only effect of California’s law on armed self-defense is the limitation that a person may fire no more than ten rounds without pausing to reload, something rarely done in self-defense,” Graber wrote.
While the law was not a “precise match” to historical weapons restrictions, “it does not need to be,” Graber wrote, citing previous case law. The state’s aim, to “protect innocent persons from infrequent but devastating events,” was “relevantly similar” to the justifications of some historic laws, she wrote, and that was enough to justify it under the modern Supreme Court standard.
The Supreme Court established in 2022 that modern firearms regulations usually must align with some historic law to be legitimate.
The panel’s decision reverses an opposing ruling by a lower court, and sends the case back down to that court for reconsideration.
The ruling was a major win for California and a coalition of nearly 20 liberal states that joined in the fight to uphold the ban, a measure they described as critical in the fight against mass shootings and other gun violence.
“California’s ban on large-capacity magazines has been a key component in our efforts to fight gun violence and prevent senseless injuries and deaths and the devastation of communities and families that are left behind in the wake of mass shootings,” California Atty. Gen. Rob 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.”
Bonta said the ruling would save lives and was an “important win.”
California gun owners and advocacy groups challenged the ban, and more than two dozen conservative states argued alongside them that the restrictions amounted to an unlawful infringement on the self-defense rights of average, law-abiding Californians.
“This incorrect ruling is not surprising considering the inclination of many 9th Circuit judges to improperly limit the 2nd Amendment’s protections,” said Chuck Michel, an attorney for the plaintiffs.
Michel said he intended to ask the Supreme Court to review — and vacate — the 9th Circuit’s decision.
“It is high time for the Supreme Court to [rein] in lower courts that are not following the Supreme Court’s mandates,” he said, “and this case presents an opportunity for the High Court to do that emphatically.”
The case, which has been ongoing for years, is one of many in California and around the country that have been re-litigated with an eye toward sometimes centuries-old weapons laws since the Supreme Court’s ruling requiring such analysis in 2022, in a case known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen.
There, the high court rejected a long-standing pillar of 2nd Amendment law and said most restrictions on firearms are legitimate only if they are deeply rooted in American history, or sufficiently similar to some historic rule.
The ruling prompted states like California to delve through history to find historic laws — including against antiquated weapons such as “trap guns” — that could be construed as establishing early precedent for current laws against modern weapons such as assault rifles.
In September 2023, District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego ruled that California’s ban on large-capacity magazines was unconstitutional under the new Bruen standard. In October 2023, he ruled the state’s ban on assault rifles was similarly unconstitutional.
The 9th Circuit stayed both decisions, as it took them up for review. Many in the state were awaiting Thursday’s decision in the magazines case — which could help to clear a logjam in other gun litigation, in California and across the American West, where the 9th Circuit retains jurisdiction.
The decision divided Graber, an appointee of President Clinton, and the panel’s liberal judges from its conservative judges. Three panel judges appointed by President Trump — Ryan D. Nelson, Patrick J. Bumatay and Lawrence VanDyke — wrote dissents.
Bumatay wrote that California has a justifiable interest in reducing gun violence, but that its long list of gun control measures “continually whittle away the Second Amendment guarantee,” and in clear violation of the Bruen decision.
“Nothing in the historical understanding of the Second Amendment warrants California’s magazine ban. Even with some latitude in searching for historical analogues, none exist,” he wrote.
In his own dissent, Nelson wrote that he agreed with Bumatay that the panel majority’s decision upholding California’s law as constitutional “flouts” the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen.
