Ninth Circuit Upholds Injunction Against California Standard Capacity Magazine Ban

Standard Capacity Magazines Ban
Ninth Circuit Upholds Injunction Against California Standard Capacity Magazine Ban

California – -( In another blow to Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom’s anti-gun agenda, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in the case of Duncan v. Becerra on Tuesday, upholding a lower court’s decision to suspend enforcement of Proposition 63’s restriction on the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

Following the enactment of Proposition 63, CRPA attorneys sought an injunction against the magazine possession ban, arguing that the law violated the Second Amendment, as well as the due process and takings clauses of the United States Constitution.

Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction just days before the law was set to take effect. California quickly appealed the decision.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that Judge Benitez did not abuse his discretion, holding that he applied the correct legal standards and made reasonable inferences based on the record. But one judge on the panel disagreed. Responding to the dissent, the majority noted that it was not within the panel’s authority to re-weigh the evidence of the case, nor could it substitute its discretion for that of the district court. What’s more, referencing the Ninth Circuit’s 2014 ruling in Fyock v. Sunnyvale, which affirmed the denial of an injunction against a local magazine ban, the majority held that simply because a judge disagrees with another district court does not necessarily mean the district court abused its discretion on the matter.

Meanwhile, in the trial court, a motion for summary judgment is pending and a ruling on the merits of the case is expected soon. Regardless of the outcome, the case will most certainly be appealed again to the Ninth Circuit. But by that time, the Supreme Court will likely have a new Justice who respects the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment.

To stay informed on the Duncan case, as well as other important Second Amendment issues affecting California gun owners, be sure to subscribe to NRA and CRPA email alerts. And be sure to visit the NRA-ILA California dedicated webpage at and the new CRPA webpage at

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jim Macklin

Attn: Tomcat The taxpayers need less for the money, we have too much government as it is. But if they’d spend the money more wisely. Of course the Elephant that they won’t talk about is te governments spending and printing has reduced the purchasing power of a dollar to 2 cents. In the 1950s Ike’s budget to run the whole country was $88 billion in 1960. JFK and spending went up to about $110 billion. Today the spending is well over $4 trillion Not that we get MORE, it is just that things are less time and less less expensive… Read more »


Rather unusual, but welcome from this court, this decision.


Democrats, always trying to find ways to deprive people of their rights. The idiots believe them, the dangerously complacent ignore them, and thus they succeed in taking a little more of our rights every day.


And who pays for all this messing with the 2A, yes the good old taxpayer. Who pays when the democrats and rinos spend all their time attacking Trump rather than cleaning up actual problems that plague the citizens, yes it is the taxpayer. I really think we deserve more for our tax dollars.


The new justice is yet to be confirmed, and if the Democrats(Communists) managed to pull off the Blue Wave they talk about, all hopes of saving our 2nd amendment rights are gone. Even if all goes well, the Supreme Court has seemed to decided not to consider any new 2nd amendment cases. They are leaving them to the lower courts. The NY SAFE Act and Connecticut’s AWB are ones that they refused to hear in the not so distant past.


Funny thing about that 2nd Amendment. Is the right to be able to oppose tyranny really something that we sit waiting to be turned “on” or “off” according to the whim of tyrants?

Jim Macklin

In 1775 the Minutemen were not sanctioned or chartered by the King’s Governor in Massachusetts Bay Colony. They were unorganized militia. In 1776 the colonists put it in writing, “The people have a right and a duty” to secure a free state. When they wrote the Constitution in 1788, Patrick Henry and others objected because “the militia” was in the hands of the government. That is why they wrote the Bill of Rights. The right that is guaranteed is what the people would need to be able to form an unorganized militia with arms. That unorganized militia is a “check… Read more »

John Galt

clark kent seems to be a statist troll


I love it when Blue State commies get the “[email protected] ’em” response by a ‘real’ constitutional judgement.


I am stunned. I had to read this twice. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals actually upheld the Constitution for a change. Maybe there is hope for America after all.

Clark Kent

Only a 3 judge panel, not the entire court. Learn to read and there will be hope for America.


RIGHT quote} a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit {quote
Yeah, the liberal morons will appeal to the ENTIRE court and of course the entire 9th circus will overturn the sensible ruling and make ANOTHER judgement that will be overturned by the Supreme Court.
The 9th circus has had something like 70% of their decisions overturned; its TIME to split it into 3 or four courts covering smaller areas..

Wild Bill

@Super G, but the 9th Circus did not find for the Second Amendment. They found that the lower court simply did not abuse its discretion. One can not trust the 9th circus.


modification: 9th cervix