In a significant legal development, the appeals court has upheld California’s prohibition on gun magazines that accommodate more than ten rounds of ammunition. This decision follows a detailed evaluation of the law’s alignment with the Second Amendment.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a 7-4 ruling, asserting that large-capacity magazines do not qualify as “arms” or “protected accessories” under the Constitution. The ruling elaborated that, even if they were considered as such, the state’s ban adheres to a historical tradition of safety regulations aimed at protecting innocent citizens and controlling particularly hazardous weapon uses and components necessary for firearm operation.
One judge, Lawrence VanDyke, vocally disagreed with the majority ruling. Taking an unusual step, he supplemented his written dissent with a video on YouTube, where he is seen inside his chambers handling and demonstrating the loading and firing of various guns. In his video demonstration, VanDyke argues that high-capacity magazines are akin to other firearm accessories, any of which could potentially be banned under the majority’s reasoning, thereby granting the government excessive discretionary power.
VanDyke’s conduct drew criticism from Judge Marsha S. Berzon, who noted in a separate opinion that he was introducing “facts outside the record” and positioning himself as a de facto expert witness on the case, which overstepped his judicial role.
The law, under scrutiny since a district court judge in San Diego deemed it unconstitutional earlier this year, remains enforced as California contests the decision. The legal challenge originated from four individuals and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, who argued that the ban infringes on Second Amendment rights.
The appellate judges maintained that supporting the ban aligns with a 2022 Supreme Court ruling, which emphasized historical antecedents of gun regulation over contemporary safety concerns.
California’s Attorney General, Rob Bonta, welcomed the court’s decision, underscoring the importance of such measures in possibly preventing mass casualty incidents. “This straightforward measure, limiting the number of rounds a shooter can fire before needing to reload, is widely recognized as a crucial step toward reducing the risk of shooting incidents escalating into tragedies,” Bonta remarked in a statement, highlighting the law’s life-saving potential.
