FPC Responds to 9th Circuit Court Upholding CA Magazine Ban

Standard Capacity Magazines
Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has issued the following statement in response to today’s misguided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Duncan v. Bonta. IMG Jim Grant

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has issued the following statement in response to today’s misguided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Duncan v. Bonta, which held that California’s law banning so-called “large-capacity magazines” (those that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition) is permissible under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, Takings Clause, and Due Process Clause:

Today’s misguided decision makes it crystal clear that the Ninth Circuit will not respect the Constitution until the Supreme Court requires it to. Rather than following the binding Supreme Court’s D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago opinions, the Court of Appeals again used legal gamesmanship to avoid the constitutionally required result just as it has for over a decade.

The Supreme Court must make clear in its upcoming Second Amendment opinion that the Bizarro World subversion, obstruction, and avoidance doctrines employed by hostile and recalcitrant judges, as the Ninth Circuit did in this case, cannot continue. That has been and remains a focus of our FPC Law program, which has filed dozens of briefs in the past year, including many at the Supreme Court.

In April, FPC filed a brief in this case that highlighted the history of repeating arms capable of firing more than 10 rounds and made the point that such magazines are not only common now, but have been for centuries. Judge Bumatay’s dissent adopted the approach we articulated and encouraged in our brief and starkly contrasts with the flawed majority opinion.

FPC believes that individuals have a natural right to keep and bear arms—one that is enshrined in our Constitution and which pre-exists government itself—and that entitlement includes the right to purchase and possess firearm magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Just as we have with our Miller v. Bonta challenge to California’s assault weapons ban, the first post-trial victory of its kind in U.S. history, FPC will continue to aggressively execute our mission and litigate these issues in courts across the country until all people can access and exercise their full right to keep and bear arms, including through the possession of the common magazines California unconstitutionally bans.


About Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend constitutional rights—especially the right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom through litigation and legal action, legislative and regulatory action, education, outreach, grassroots activism, other programs. FPC Law is the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on the Second Amendment and adjacent fundamental rights including freedom of speech and due process, conducting litigation, research, scholarly publications, and amicus briefing, among other efforts.Firearms Policy Coalition

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
8 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Charles Nichols

Well, the NRA/CRPA lawyer did say in the en banc oral argument that it is constitutional to ban large-capacity magazines.

willyd

Once again someone connected with LA PUE went behind the members and SANK the APPEAL, by agreeing with the 9th Circus Court, THANKS NRA!!!!!!

Charles Nichols

The members of the NRA and its state organizations like the CRPA are the ones inevitably to blame for the loss. The same lawyer in the appeal of a city ordinance banning magazines (before the statewide ban went into effect) said the very same thing, bans on large-capacity magazines are constitutional. Nobody went behind anyone’s back. The NRA and the other so-called gun-rights groups and their supporters are the greatest enemies of the individual right to keep and bear arms and they have been quite open about their opposition to those who read their legal briefs and who listen to… Read more »

Boz

Hey, Lefties………All of my mags are for my 458 SOCOM and only hold 10 rounds, period. You may be able to get 30 5.56 rounds in them, but…..that’s not my problem.

mcb

This one deserves a writ of mandamus. The Ninth Cir. Repeatedly and consistently defies USSC. The Federal Judge in my open carry case, (Baird v Bonta), lost her temper when my attorney told Judge Muler that she needed to follow USSC dictates and rulings. Judge Muler, (admittedly a hard core Democrat operative), said she found my attorneys statements dangerous and frivolous to suggest she should follow USSC rulings instead of her own Circuit. Judge Muler has never read the U.S. Constitution! Art 3, Sec 1 clearly says, ( I am paraphrasing), All Judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court,… Read more »

Finnky

Your statement on voting is a nice sentiment, but I suspect you are dramatically outnumbered within the state of California.

Judge Muler is downright scary. If she indeed made the statements you attribute, she basically said there is no rule-of-law in California – and everybody is free to ignore whatever laws they disagree with.

swmft

whole west coast looks that way,someone needs to empty prison into her gated neighborhood

Charles Nichols

I listened to the audio of the hearing. When it was over, I was anxious to read the case she cited in support of that position. As much as I think that district court judges should not issue opinions that conflict with the US Supreme Court, even if their opinion conflicts with their own circuit court of appeals, your attorney’s citation in support of that is very, very, thin.