NRA-ILA: California AG Seeks Further Review of Ruling in Magazine Case

Mississippi Prohibits Restrictions on Open Carry in Jackson
Friday, the California Attorney General’s office filed a petition for an en banc hearing in Duncan v. Becerra IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Friday, the California Attorney General’s office filed a petition for an en banc hearing in Duncan v. Becerra—the NRA funded case challenging California’s ban on the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The petition was expected after the 9th Circuit court of appeals affirmed that the ban violated the Second Amendment on August 14, 2020.  With this move, Attorney General Xavier Becerra is doing the bidding of the anti-gun lobby, who earlier this week demanded that California continue to defend the unconstitutional magazine prohibition.

“Predictably, California’s Attorney General wants to override our recent victory in the 9th Circuit, where the arbitrary ban against standard-capacity magazines was correctly declared unconstitutional. Notice the hypocrisy: Like ammunition for self-defense, AG Becerra wants as many judges as possible when it serves himself. The NRA will continue to defend law-abiding Californians and the 9th Circuit’s ruling in favor of your Second Amendment rights.” – Jason Ouimet, NRA-ILA Executive Director

The case centers on California Penal Code §32310, which prior to 2016, imposed restrictions on the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, and receipt of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. In 2016, the law was amended to add an outright ban, prohibiting nearly everyone in the state from possessing such magazines. California residents who owned LCMs were given the option of removing the magazine from the state, selling it to a firearms dealer, permanently modifying the magazine so that it was incapable of holding over ten rounds or surrendering it to law enforcement for destruction. Failure to do so could result in imprisonment for up to a year.

Your NRA will continue to keep you updated as this case progresses. ​​


National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

Subscribe
Notify of
27 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
nobodyuknow
nobodyuknow
9 months ago

I hope that the en banc court shoves this right up Beccera’s and The Peoples Republik of Kalifornia’s A*S!

Xaun Loc
Xaun Loc
9 months ago

YAWN. This is NOT news. Or at least it should not be a surprise to anyone reading it. Exactly as the quote says “Predictably….” there was never any doubt that California would request an en banc review of the panel decision. We would have requested an en banc review if the decision had gone the other way. Any litigants with the money to get a case to the Circuit Court would routinely request an en banc review of any decision that goes against them — especially when the panel decision was split 2-1 certainly when the overall makeup of the… Read more »

OldGuy
OldGuy
9 months ago

California is no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave. Actually, California is the home of tyrants who continually seek to separate us from our Constitutional rights. In California there are homeless people camped out everywhere, the Democrats who are the party in power by their majority are soft to the BLM Demonstrators who first assemble to protest and then riot, loot, and burn honest businesses all while the Democrats continue to deny our Second Amendment right to purchase standard-capacity-magazines, AR-type rifles except with insane-state-mandated modifications, and we can only purchase and take possession of… Read more »

uncle dudley
uncle dudley
9 months ago

This shows just what this attorney general is made of, he can’t stand the thought that the court in it’s regular size to hear the case didn’t give him the results he wanted so now he cries for the full court to hear the case.
Doesn’t he understand that he can’t win them all especially when the ruling says it would violate the second amendment.

Tionico
Tionico
9 months ago
Reply to  uncle dudley

Don’t forget this AtG is the hand-picked successor to the last AtG to reign over California. Whorizontal “Camelnose” Harris looked long and hard to find the nastiest antigun antiliberty she could find to follow in the swampy path she ws abandoning, with the hopes of doing the same at the national level. Now she’s in line (illegally so, as she is NOT qualified to hold the office of VP) to become second, and almost certainly first, in power in the nation, folks need to rmember her track record, and come up with thc correct answer to “do we REALLY want… Read more »

Ryben Flynn
Ryben Flynn
9 months ago

AFAIK, the 9th Circus Court for the Southern District of California is evenly split with 8 Democrat and 8 Republican nominated Judges and 8 vacancies. This could go either way. Unless some of those vacancies have been filled by President Trump. This is as of 3/6/2020.
en dot wikipedia dot org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Southern_District_of_California#Current_judges

Finnky
Finnky
9 months ago

Does their law call for one year or one year per magazine? I could easily see that turning into a life sentence, simply for have a few rectangular metal tubes with springs and plastic parts added. Anybody else think this violates 8th amendment ban on excessive punishment? Even if the ban were reasonable and based on magazines actually posing some risk (neither of which I believe to be the case) – how could anyone argue that having magazines is worse than running a red light? Yet where traffic violations result I need minor fines. Talk about disproportionate!

Get Out
Get Out
9 months ago

It would be interesting to hear from Californians who have gone out and bought a boat load of these mags. Hopefully millions more mags will flood into the state too.

RoyD
RoyD
9 months ago
Reply to  Get Out

In lo these several decades I have never heard of “hiding mags in walls.” My sheltered life I guess.

Finnky
Finnky
9 months ago

One might reasonably ask why legal challenge in this case is being funded by private organizations. Why is this not being handled by the justice department at tax payer expense. Fed goes after all sorts of other civil rights infringements, why not this one?

Deplorable Bill
Deplorable Bill
9 months ago

Another tyrant. The day is coming when justice returns to America. It will either come through a righteous court — if there are any left, or through the righteous citizenry. Jefferson was right, that tree will have to be refreshed and soon. Just as our forefathers did, we have seen our GOD given constitutionally protected RIGHTS and freedoms eroded away by evil men and women. Just as our forefathers did, we have petitioned our government in the most humble terms. Just as our forefathers did, we have been answered by even more tyranny, threats, unlawful emprisonment, violence, retaliation by government… Read more »

guns
guns
9 months ago
Hi my name is leonardcater am from usa.I enjoyed you!! May GOD bless and hold your family!!<a href="https://gunsaka47.com/">Visit </a>
Last edited 9 months ago by guns
tetejaun
tetejaun
9 months ago

ALL ‘gun control laws” are unconstitutional as they go against the strict wording of the Constitution. NO LAW may stand that is not in 100% harmony with the constitution.
ALL “gun control laws” are anti-constitutional as they attempt to change the constitution and bypass the amendment process.

Unconstitutional “gun control laws” work because Americans are screaming yellow cowards and it is easier to kneel than to stand.
Kneel at your own peril.

Last edited 9 months ago by tetejaun
GUNFUN
GUNFUN
9 months ago
Reply to  tetejaun

Technically speaking, they could pass a law that somehow increases the number of guns in American citizen’s control without violating the Constitution. It would be a constitutional “gun-control” law. I would shit myself, but it would be constitutional.

Random71
Random71
9 months ago
Reply to  GUNFUN

It would likely be called a Militia Act, and it would be fully constitutional as it is given to the Congress that they are to provide for the milita when/if called up. I want my rifle and training ammo voucher.

Laddyboy
Laddyboy
9 months ago
Reply to  Random71

; One FACT that is totally ignored is:
The States ARE RESPONSIBLE to equip AND train their own Militias. This, I believe, is found in the Federalist Papers which gave INSIGHT and helped to EXPLAINED much of the Constitution.

Random71
Random71
9 months ago
Reply to  tetejaun

They are literally repugnant to the constitution and thus are void per SCOTUS.

sage419
sage419
9 months ago

The initial ruling by Benitez is rock solid on this one. Couldn’t be a better choice for a USSC case.

MICHAEL J
MICHAEL J
9 months ago

Becerra is a snake when it comes to the people’s rights to firearms. He’s decided that the Nineth Circuit Court didn’t rule correctly on the magazine issue and so again this viper has imposed his will with yet another challenge. “Attorney General Becerra Files for en banc Review with the Ninth Circuit in the Duncan v. Becerra case.” The trouble with any unconstitutional laws, is that they seem to stay in effect even if questionable. This tends to work well for the Attorney General anytime he disagrees. His ploy to tie up unfavorable decisions by keeping them in constant litigation… Read more »

GUNFUN
GUNFUN
9 months ago
Reply to  MICHAEL J

What is interesting is that Congress has given so much of the power to control firearms to the ATF that we could make HUGE improvements with a new manager. For instance, what would you define a “machine-gun”? I would argue that only a belt-fed .50 BMG on a tripod would match that discription. A rifle silencer would have to be shown to reduce the report of a firearm below human senses, and a short barreled rifle (not a carbine!) would have to have a fixed length stock and a barrel that is less than 5 inches. Shotguns would fall into… Read more »

Joe
Joe
9 months ago

Well said !!

GUNFUN
GUNFUN
9 months ago
Reply to  Joe

Yeah, some of it still is.

Random71
Random71
9 months ago
Reply to  GUNFUN

If 2020 has proven anything it is that we truly never really know for sure. Lots of little rabbit holes out there, some pan out, some do not.

Z
Z
9 months ago

The more they push the closer it comes East to SCOTUS DO KEEP PUSHING CALIFORNIA KEEP PUSHING WE NEED SCOTUS TO MSKE IT FINAL

GUNFUN
GUNFUN
9 months ago
Reply to  Z

Who knows what SCOTUS would determine. Does the right to keep and bear arms include the ability to readily load your firearm with as many rounds as you wish? Remember, many Supreme Court decisions have lived for hundreds of years without even smelling logical!

Dubi Loo
Dubi Loo
9 months ago
Reply to  GUNFUN

SCOTUS can’t be relied upon simply because of one man, Roberts.

Tionico
Tionico
9 months ago
Reply to  GUNFUN

that term”arms” must be considered in light of its commony held meaning at the time that Bill fo Rights was written and ratified. In that ppace and time “arms” meant weapons of ilitary usefulness and able to be deployed by a soldier on his own. That could include even smaller field piece cannon, it certainly included semi-automatic long guns capable of firing forty rounds in quick succession without reloading, which weapons did indeed exist at that time. It certainly includes ALL of our weapons in common use today, incluiding the tripod mounted belt-fed BMG fifty mentioned above. It would laso… Read more »