California: Stay Issued in 9th Circuit Magazine Ban Ruling

Magazine Top NRA-ILA
Californian’s can now legally purchase standard-capacity magazines while the 9th Circuit Court’s ban is on stay! IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A. -( Last Monday, a stay was granted in the case of Duncan v. Bonta after an en banc panel upheld California’s ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. With this stay, the Ninth Circuit has decided to allow Californians to continue possession of any magazines that were acquired during “Freedom Week” or prior to the ban taking effect—for the time being.

The court agreed to stay the mandate from its decision for 150 days, to May 19, 2022. The court’s order further stays the mandate until the U.S. Supreme Court disposes of a petition for certiorari, should one be filed.

NRA-ILA is supporting this lawsuit and many other lawsuits in California.

Stay tuned to your inbox and for updates concerning your Second Amendment 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

Has there been any action on removing CA’s ridiculous ammo purchase laws? Background checks required on every purchase! No non-resident purchases! Heck even the ‘blue-line’ crowd should be foaming at the mouth – cops cannot purchase ammo without letter from the CLEO saying they need it for official duty. LEOSA may allow you to carry your gun while visiting California, but if you bring ammo into the state you are committing a crime and if you purchase ammo in the state you are committing a crime. @wjd – do you find carrying an unloaded handgun makes you feel safer? Do… Read more »


Some misinformation here. The law only applies to California residents as far as importing ammunition. See 30314(a) of the California Penal Code. Sworn officers are also exempt- 30314(b)(2) CPC. The letter you refer to is needed for the officer to buy an “off-roster” handgun or an AR. With the AR, however, the officer cannot take it with him upon retirement. It must stay with the agency, even if he bought it with his own money.

30314 CPC


Hell that isn’t any better. lol


Oh, I’m SO glad to hear the government is “allowing” people to exercise their constitutional rights! Combine that with the fact that the NRA helped get the ball rolling on arms laws in California with their support of the Mulford Act and I don’t think my eyes can roll any harder.


the Mulford Act? lmao! wake up. todays NRA is NOT your daddy’s nra.


Yeah, you’re right. Today’s NRA has a grifter at the helm in addition to being the country’s largest and most successful gun control organization.


Communist reside on the 9th circuit court in California it appears and they prefer government overreach over freedom . Glad to see they have been over ruled on the high capacity magazine ban but they also need to do away with background checks for ammo . Infringement is unconstitutional and it’s time it stops.


The caption under the picture reads: “Californian’s can now legally purchase standard-capacity magazines while the 9th Circuit Court’s ban is on stay!” The articles written description of the stay states: “…the Ninth Circuit has decided to allow Californians to continue possession of any magazines that were acquired during “Freedom Week” or prior to the ban taking effect—for the time being.” Can you get some consistency in messaging? According to your description of the stay, it doesn’t allow you to “now legally purchase standard capacity magazines.” It only allows you to legally possess standard capacity magazines which were purchased during “Freedom… Read more »


So, the stay applies to any magazine bought during “freedom week” resulting from Judge Benitez initial ruling, which in effect means any magazine available after that date. Remember, there are no serial numbers or lot numbers on magazines. So, if a 13 round magazine was in existence for your Glock 23 on that date and you pick up a similar one after that date the state has no way of proving or disproving you did not buy it illegally. Cash is a wonderful thing. That being said, the ‘ban’ is effectively over. You can buy a case of magazines for… Read more »


“You can buy a case of magazines for cash, keep them, and when the State of Lenin tries to take them from you it will be an unconstitutional taking.” Sounds good in theory until you take all possibilities into consideration. If the state enacts a ban on possession of the possession of standard size magazines… and can keep it… then your statement will be erroneous. Remember, .50 cal rifles used to be legal, then they mandated registration (and claimed they were not going to outlaw them) and then made them illegal. They were legally owned and then the “State of… Read more »

Wild Bill

Yeah, sounds like buying into a big problem. Just quietly sell out, take profit, and leave Commiefornia. Happy New State of Residence.


“You can keep what you purchased legally, for the time being.”


150 days provides time for anyone to whom you foolishly spoke to forget what you have. If you’ve got anti-gun friends or family who know too much, take the time to gripe about how much you’ve had to spend replacing your magazines. Sell the fact that you’ve disposed of your soon-to-be-illegal property. Noncompliance is to be expected – but don’t be caught unless you’re ready for the legal (or physical) battles to ensue. To reword the old line from Barretta (the cop show) “Don’t do the crime (and get caught) if you can’t do the time.” Does anyone here expect… Read more »


That’s one theory on what to do.


Slaves beg.


Keep them all, buy more, and exercise your freedom. We do NOT ask permission.