After a long ping-pong game of courtroom hearings, en banc rulings, remands, and disregard for the Bill of Rights going back to 2017, the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals has ruled 7-4 against the plaintiffs in a case called “Duncan et al v. Bonta,” declaring it perfectly fine to threaten peaceful California residents if they own or try to get gun magazines that can hold more than ten rounds.
And, as an added insult, California’s dominant newspaper, the LA Times, offered this cozy, assumption-filled headline:
“9th Circuit upholds California ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines”
Don’t think about who defines “large-capacity” or how. And forget that the possession of something isn’t an aggressive act, just bow in fealty to the Times and the majority on the Ninth Circuit.
The backstory to this is important, and starts in1999, when Senate Bill 23 (SB 23), introduced by Senator Don Perata, passed the California State Assembly and Senate. Governor Gray Davis (D) signed it, making it illegal to manufacture, import, sell, give, or lend magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds - though it allowed existing owners to keep them (a "grandfather clause").
How nice.
Then, in 2016, California passed Proposition 63, a statewide referendum that eliminated the exception for already established owners of the mags, and increased the punishments for infraction.
As Jonathan Turley notes, the case has gone up and down the court system since then.
In June of 2016, District Judge Roger Benitez granted a preliminary injunction, halting enforcement of Proposition 63’s possession ban (which was set to take effect July 1, 2017) while the case proceeded. This allowed Californians to retain “LCMs” they legally owned prior to the ban.
He soon issued a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring California Penal Code Section 32310 unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and issuing a permanent injunction against its enforcement. This stood for a single week, something Californians call “Freedom Week,” during which they could legally acquire LCMs.
But, following the California government’s appeal, Judge Benitez stayed his own ruling, pending appeal, reinstating the LCM ban except for those who acquired magazines during the brief window.
Following its landmark decision in “New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen” (June 23, 2022), the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in “Duncan v. Bonta,” vacated the Ninth Circuit’s 2021 en banc (full court) ruling, and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration under the Bruen standard, which requires gun laws to align with historical tradition rather than what gun-grabbers call “balancing the rights of people with the public interest.”
Someone might want to tell those people that they morally and logically cannot determine for you what is a minimal burden, and they cannot claim that the “interests” of government take precedence over the God-given rights of individual human beings.
And, after a tremendous amount of back and forth, stays, and reversals, we arrive at the March 20 Ninth Circuit en banc decision.
As Turley writes:
“In a 7-4 decision authored by senior circuit Judge Susan Graber, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, the majority wrote that ‘a large-capacity magazine has little function in armed self-defense, but its use by mass shooters has exacerbated the harm of those horrific events.’”
Heavy trucks also can cause more harm to people when violent people drive them into crowds. Does that mean politicians have a right to take them away from peaceful people?
Pay no heed to the explicit proscription of the Second Amendment, banning all restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. And forget the fact that the court is acting in a completely arbitrary manner when focusing on mass shootings as their “threshold” for “banning” a certain size magazine.
In fact, even on their level, the majority on the Ninth Circuit have a flimsy argument.
It does not take long to crunch the numbers of the Gun Violence Archive (GVA) for January through December 18, of 2024, and discover a few major facts the “LCM” banners don’t discuss.
Related: Supreme Court Avoids Second Amendment, Okays Gun Bans For People Outside Prison
As of December 18, 2024, GVA reported 16,088 gun-related deaths in the US (excluding suicides) and 31,652 injuries from homicides, murders, unintentional shootings, and defensive gun use incidents, totaling 47,740 victims of gun violence resulting in homicide or injury. Mass shootings, defined by GVA as incidents where four or more people (excluding the shooter) are shot, numbered 491 by that date, with 500 deaths and 2,134 injuries, totaling 2,634 victims, meaning that, for all gun-related deaths and injuries (including DEFENSIVE uses) through December 18 of last year, mass-shooting victims comprised 5.52%.
This Ninth Circuit ruling defies logic, and it shows us how dedicated gun-grabbers are in their quest to attack any facet of armed self-defense that they can.
It will head to the U.S. Supreme Court, where, Turley notes, “It will join another magazine ban case in Ocean State Tactical v. Neronha, which is awaiting a decision on whether it will be picked up by the Court.”
And, despite the 2022 “Bruen” decision affirming the right to personally carry a firearm outside the home, the gun-grabbers will attempt to define the magazine as an “accessory” that might not be “covered” by the Second Amendment.
It should not matter how they define what YOU want for your self-defense.
Such an attack means government officials, backed by government guns, using government-collected tax money, are eager to argue in a government court (you get to pay for that, too, whether you want to, or you don’t) that you peacefully cannot own something for your self-defense.
And it clearly shows us which side of the “government v. the individual” fight is engaged in aggression.