NSSF Celebrates CA Court Victory Protecting 2A Rights, Standard Magazine Possession

Standard Capacity Magazine NSSF
A three-judge panel upheld the lower court's decision that CA's ban on standard capacity magazines is unconstitutional. IMG NSSF

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- NSSF, the trade association for the firearm industry, applauded the decision of a three-judge panel to uphold a lower court’s decision that California’s ban on standard capacity magazines violates Second Amendment rights and is unconstitutional.

The panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed (2-1) the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez in Duncan v Becerra that California’s ban on possessing firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds violates the Second Amendment. NSSF submitted an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs’ challenge to the state law.

“This is a tremendous victory for all who value the rule of law and preservation of individual liberties protected by the U.S. Constitution,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President of General Counsel. “The firearm industry trade association was confident that possession of these accessories is protected by the Second Amendment and that California overreached to infringe upon the fundamental civil liberties of law-abiding citizens. This serves as notice to antigun politicians that their campaign to trample on constitutional rights and advance a radical agenda to deny citizens’ their Second Amendment rights will not go unchallenged.”

Duncan v Becerra challenged California Government Code § 31310, which bans possession of what California termed “large capacity magazines,” (LCMs) or any magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Judge Kenneth K. Lee wrote for the majority that, “California’s near-categorical ban of LCMs strikes at the core of the Second Amendment — the right to armed self-defense. Armed self-defense is a fundamental right rooted in tradition and the text of the Second Amendment. Indeed, from pre-colonial times to today’s post-modern era, the right to defend hearth and home has remained paramount.”

Finding that the challenged law must be evaluated under strict scrutiny, he continued, “California’s law imposes a substantial burden on this right to self-defense.”

NSSF expects California’s Attorney General to seek a review of the decision to the full court. However, NSSF is confident the holding of the panel that the legal test applied to the decision are sound and will survive appeal.


National Shooting Sports FoundationAbout The National Shooting Sports Foundation

NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org

Subscribe
Notify of
5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
GUNFUN
GUNFUN
2 months ago

Interesting to note, the bill of rights was originally intended to only apply to the federal government, not the states.

However, we have fallen into applying the bill of rights to the state. Depending on California’s constitution, magazine limitations may be constitutional.

Random71
Random71
2 months ago
Reply to  GUNFUN

10A: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

2A, with its text of shall not be infringed, implies that power to infringe is prohibited by the constitution from the feds and the states. Thankfully the the wording of the Tenth makes things more clear. As it states that things are delegated to the Fed and the constitution does prohibit the states from certain actions.

When something says shall not be infringed, I’m pretty sure it means by anyone.

Finnky
Finnky
2 months ago
Reply to  GUNFUN

Limitations on government, intended to protect individual rights, do no good unless they apply to all levels of government. Particularly as you cannot revolt against a city without state and federal governments jumping in to put down your insurrection.

gregs
gregs
2 months ago
Reply to  GUNFUN

i noticed you capitalized the first words in each sentence and the state that wants to infringe on our Second Amendment right but not the actual document name. please capitalize the words “Bill of Rights”. after all you are writing about the document that elucidates the rights you have. a standard capacity magazine is what the manufacturer designs and provides with the firearm at point of sale. it all depends on the firearm model you are purchasing. do not let bureaucrats nor prohibitionists pick and choose the terminology of something they know little to nothing about. that would be like… Read more »

Heed the Call-up
Heed the Call-up
2 months ago
Reply to  GUNFUN

If federal constitutional amendments applied only to the federal government, then the amendments that freed the slaves and gave them rights as citizens would not apply to the states, and we would still have slavery. Same with voting rights for blacks and women. Welcome to the USA, comrade.

Last edited 2 months ago by Heed the Call-up