California 9th Circuit Heard Arguments in Magazine Ban Case

California AR15 NRA-ILA
California has a long history of screwing over legal gun owners. IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A. -( Yesterday, an 11-judge en-banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Duncan v. Bonta, the NRA-backed challenge to California’s ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammo. The case was argued by the Kirkland & Ellis law firm.

One of the highlights was an exchange between judge Lawrence VanDyke and the attorney representing California. California argued that banning “large-capacity magazines” was necessary to reduce gun crimes where more than 10 rounds of ammo were used. Those crimes are relatively rare. But at the same time, California argued that the ban is trivial because law-abiding citizens rarely use 10 rounds of ammo in self-defense situations. In other words, California argued that rarely occurring events justified its authority to ban the magazines, but the ban was trivial because law-abiding citizens rarely need 10 rounds of ammo to defend themselves. Judge VanDyke then accused California’s counsel of making a “heads we win, tails you lose” argument by “using rarity in two different ways.”

Another highlight was when the Plaintiffs’ attorney rattled off facts about the historical prevalence of “large-capacity magazines.” She noted that the Winchester Model1866 rifle had a 17-round capacity. It was a very common rifle on the market the same year that the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, thereby incorporating the Second Amendment against the states. The fact that the Winchester 1866 and other firearms that held more than 10 rounds of ammunition were so prevalent at the time serves as a strong indication that those arms are protected by the Second Amendment.

The argument can be viewed on the Ninth Circuit’s YouTube channel.

Please stay tuned to for future updates on this and all of NRA-ILA’s efforts to defend your constitutional rights.

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:

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

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

There are other relevant examples of rifles-of-the-day holding more than 10 cartridges aside from the 1886 Winchester. Does anyone remember the1860 Henry as chamber for the 44 Henry Rimfire? It was a pioneering design packaged in a reliable and practical lever action repeater and it was adopted in limited numbers during the Civil War, the Henry was the 16-shot rifle referred to as “the rifle you could load on Sunday and shoot all week long.” America’s desire for large capacity firearms is not just something “new” as the Democrats on the far-left would have everyone believe; especially as they attempt… Read more »


Strong indication? As in, there’s a question? You fudds at the NRA have been speaking the oath breakers’ language too long.

Arms are protected. You need to read through at least one more time.


So? I crack up when I see these article. Many people wait breathlessly to hear the “decision” of these courts and judges. My rights don’t come from courts or judges. The only decision I care about took place in 1791, all else is tyranny.


Sometimes 10 rounds just isn’t enough.
Kevin Costlow shot by Montgomery sheriff’s deputy Saturday – The Washington Post


Irrelevant to the article – but… I like the bear-arm in title photo.
Was that live or photoshop?

Now you have me contemplating a Texas flag themed paint job. I’m way to cheap, but still intrigued.

Big George

Actually, it’s a lapel pin. I’ve seen similar at gun shows for around $5-$10 per.