Huge Win For Gun Owners In California Standard Gun Magazine Case

9th Circuit Court sides with gun owners in landmark Duncan v. Becerra case.

High Capacity Magazines 223 Ammunition Ammo
Standard Capacity Magazines 223 Ammunition Ammo

California – -(AmmoLand.com)- Today the California Rifle & Pistol Association received the much-anticipated ruling in the long-fought Second Amendment case Duncan v. Becerra. This is the same case that led to “Freedom Week” where thousands of Californians were able to lawfully purchase standard capacity magazines much like the rest of the country.

CRPA has been fighting since the 30,000+ member-driven organization filed the case back in 2017, and has led the fight through the courts with the assistance of the National Rifle Association.

Initially won through a positive ruling by the United States District Court in San Diego, the state quickly appealed — and Judge Benitez was forced to stay his ruling to allow the purchase of magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition until the appeal was made to the Ninth Circuit. CRPA’s legal team quickly answered the State’s appeal and presented oral arguments.

“Today’s decision in Duncan v. Becerra is a major victory for the Second Amendment, both in California and across the country,” said Chuck Michel, president and General Counsel of the California Rifle & Pistol Association.

In its case, CRPA demonstrated how prohibiting law-abiding citizens from manufacturing, obtaining, selling, transferring, or even possessing standard-issue magazines for firearms violates the constitution.

“After years of fighting, the Court decided in favor of our plaintiffs’ challenge against the state’s ban on standard capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds,” said Michel.

Read the complete opinion from the 9th here:

Duncan v. Becerra Ruling

The court noted that the state’s efforts to ban these [gun] magazines does not pass the strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny tests and is a heavy burden on the Second Amendment rights of Californians.

“This is a huge win specifically for the right to possess these valuable self-defense tools. But more generally, this case may present the Supreme Court with an opportunity to set things straight on the underlying issue of what the standard of review test should be when considering any Second Amendment challenge,” Michel said.

“The Supreme Court seems inclined to do away with the complicated subjective tests that many courts have wrongly applied in Second Amendment cases, in favor of a clearer more objective “originalist” approach that considers the text, history and tradition of a law to determine what infringements might be tolerated,” he concluded.

CRPA continues to fight in nearly a dozen major court battles to protect and defend the Second Amendment in California. Our attorneys are reviewing the order now to determine what this means for FFLs and gun owners in California and more information will be made available soon.


California Rifle & Pistol AssociationAbout the California Rifle & Pistol Association

Founded in 1875, the California Rifle & Pistol Association provides training in the safe, responsible, and enjoyable use of firearms; sanctions competitive shooting state championships; and fights for the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms for those who choose to own a gun in California for sport, hunting, or self-defense. For more information, visit crpa.org.

Subscribe
Notify of
10 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stewee
Stewee
22 days ago

Does this effect New Jersey?

Arny
Arny
1 month ago

Now if you could only find some ammo. lol

MICHAEL J
MICHAEL J
1 month ago

More infringements-more battles: 1. Background checks/commerce regarding ammunition purchases. 2. California DOJ’s handgun roster. Both equally anti-Second Amendment. A glimmer of hope for the law-abiding.

Green Mtn. Boy
Green Mtn. Boy
1 month ago

Saint judge Roger Benitez,in his original decision was that well thought and written,it will stand the test of time and if there is to be restoration of the 2nd. amendment, that decision will play a large part of it.

Last edited 1 month ago by Green Mtn. Boy
Finnky
Finnky
1 month ago

Are there not three levels of review by circuit court? (1) single judge honorable Benitez, who wrote a well crafted opinion (2) 3 judge panel – this ruling. Finally “en banc” (or some such term) with 9(?) judges? If becera pushes that far, then case will be eligible for consideration by SCOTUS. Is there not still a long road ahead, or is this case over?

Magazines are not worth much without ammo. Anyone know status of California ammo ban case?

Patriot Solutions
Patriot Solutions
1 month ago
Reply to  Finnky

Brief just filed by FPC concerning background checks for ammo. Brief says un-constitutional citing evidence that even background checks for guns has such an extremely low impact on violence using a gun that even background checks for guns is blatantly un-constitutional and no evidence exists to prove that background checks actually work to stop crime committed with guns so how can it be that background checks for ammo will yeild better results than background checks for guns. Brief points out gov just dreams up un-constitutional RULES with not a shred of factual science or statics to back up their claims.… Read more »

Random71
Random71
1 month ago

Hmmm if those arguments are seen by the judges as valid; that may yield a path to get alot of good things done.

Green Mtn. Boy
Green Mtn. Boy
1 month ago

As any and all gun control laws are un Constitutional,of course it was and is.

Random71
Random71
1 month ago
Reply to  Green Mtn. Boy

Damn straight. I don’t get why politicians can not understand the definition of infringement.

Green Mtn. Boy
Green Mtn. Boy
1 month ago
Reply to  Random71

YuP,I can’t fathom what it is about “Shall Not Be Infringed” that is so difficult to comprehend.

Last edited 1 month ago by Green Mtn. Boy