Large-capacity gun magazines remain illegal in California after federal appellate court ruling

Despite a federal judge’s ruling overturning California’s ban on large-capacity firearm magazines for a second time, the law remains in effect after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — which oversees federal cases from California — issued a stay on the judge’s order pending further legal proceedings.

With that decision, gun magazines with more than 10 rounds remain illegal to purchase, sell or transfer in California.

“We are relieved that the court considered the public safety of Californians in its decision to grant our motion and maintain the restrictions on large-capacity magazines pending a decision on appeal,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is defending the law, in a statement.

In September, U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez, known for fiery language in his legal opinions and an ardent defense of the Second Amendment, overturned the state’s ban. The San Diego-based judge called the law “clearly unconstitutional.”

It was the second time that Benitez had struck down the the law; the first time was in 2019. The 9th Circuit overruled Benitez then, too.

The embattled law made it all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which kicked it back down to the district court after it’s 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, which established among other things that the Second Amendment is not unlimited.

In his September ruling, Benitez wrote of several instances where people defending themselves with firearms relied on large-capacity ammunition magazines.

“Woe to the victim who runs out of ammunition before armed attackers do. The police will mark the ground with chalk, count the number of shell casings, and file the report,” Benitez wrote.

The 9th Circuit’s en banc panel in San Francisco, by a 7-4 vote, did not agree with his assessment of the merits of the law.

“First, we conclude that the Attorney General is likely to succeed on the merits,” the circuit court wrote in its statement, adding that the law likely complies with the framework of the Bruen decision.

The court noted that there have been 10 other federal challenges of state ammunition capacity laws, and only one of those challenges — in the Southern District of Illinois — granted a preliminary injunction halting the law.

The court also notes that California could face irreparable harm if the ban is allowed to be lifted.

“If a stay is denied, California indisputably will face an influx of large-capacity magazines like those used in mass shootings in California and elsewhere,” the court wrote.

Benitez had dismissed mass shootings as the actions of a “few mad men.”

“Finally, we conclude that the public interest tips in favor of a stay,” the appellate panel wrote in its ruling. “The public has a compelling interest in promoting public safety, as mass shootings nearly always involve large-capacity magazines, and, although the public has an interest in possessing firearms and ammunition for self-defense, that interest is hardly affected by this stay.”