A federal judge in San Diego on Friday again struck down a California law that bans the possession of firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, describing the ban as “arbitrary and capricious … (and) extreme.”
Second Amendment advocates applauded the ruling while California Attorney General Rob Bonta quickly filed a notice of appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Gun violence prevention groups described the ruling as an “outlier decision” that will make the public less safe, describing large-capacity magazines as “the accessory of choice for mass shooters.”
Friday’s decision by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, the latest ruling in a winding, years-long legal battle, comes after the U.S. Supreme Court last year vacated a previous appeals court decision that upheld the ban.
“This case is about a California state law that makes it a crime to keep and bear common firearm magazines typically possessed for lawful purposes,” Benitez wrote near the top of his 71-page decision. “Based on the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, this law is clearly unconstitutional.”
Chuck Michel, president and general counsel of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, which is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit along with individual gun owners, called Benitez’s ruling “bullet proof” to any appeal and said his team was prepared to challenge one.
“Judge Benitez used a thoughtful and in-depth approach to this ruling and we are pleased that he came to the conclusion once again that California’s magazine ban is not constitutional,” Michel, who is also the lead attorney in the lawsuit, said in a statement. “CRPA (has) been fighting this magazine ban from day one and we are one step closer to a final victory for gun owners.”
Benitez granted a government request for a 10-day stay of his decision, giving Bonta the chance to once again appeal the ruling.
In a statement, Bonta pointed out that, over the past 50 years, large-capacity magazines have been used in every mass shooting that has killed at least 20 people, as well as about three-quarters of such shootings that have killed 10 or more people.
“We will continue to fight for our authority to keep Californians safe from weapon enhancements designed to cause mass casualties,” Bonta said in a statement announcing his intention to appeal the ruling. “We believe that the district court got this wrong. We will move quickly to correct this incredibly dangerous mistake.”
Eric Tirschwell, executive director of Everytown Law, the legal arm of the gun violence prevention group Everytown for Gun Safety, said laws restricting large-capacity magazines are critical public safety measures.
“Courts across the country have repeatedly held that they are constitutional under the Second Amendment,” Tirschwell said in a statement. “Today’s outlier decision is a loss for public safety, but it is far from the end of the road. We are confident that California should prevail on appeal.”
Benitez brushed aside concerns over mass shootings, writing that the “government solution to a few mad men with guns is a law that makes into criminals responsible, law-abiding people wanting larger magazines simply to protect themselves.”
Gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds have long been illegal to buy, sell or manufacture in California, but in 2016 California voters approved a law that made mere ownership of such magazines unlawful.
In their suit challenging that law, the gun owners and the California Rifle & Pistol Association argued that the ban violated their constitutional right to self-defense.
Benitez initially decided in the gun owners’ favor in March 2019, ruling that California could not ban ownership of such magazines. In August 2020, a three-judge from the 9th Circuit affirmed Benitez’s ruling. But the next year, a larger of judges from the 9th Circuit voted 7-4 to reverse the rulings that struck down the law.
Attorneys for the gun owners then asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. But first, the Supreme Court ruled in June 2022 in a different case — New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen — a decision that set a new standard for how judges must determine the legality of Second Amendment cases. Rather than hear the San Diego case on its merits, the high court vacated the 9th Circuit’s ruling that upheld the law and ordered it to reconsider the case using the new Bruen standard. The appeals court then sent the case back down to Benitez.
In a series of hearings and lengthy briefings over the last year, attorneys for both sides dug into the history books in an effort to prove whether the law stands up to the Bruen standard. In order to do that, government attorneys must try to prove that a weapons law is “rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history,” and “must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Benitez ruled that the government attorneys had failed to provide evidence of any historically similar law banning large magazines.
“There is no American tradition of limiting ammunition capacity and the 10-round limit has no historical pedigree and it is arbitrary and capricious. It is extreme,” Benitez wrote. “Our federal government and most states impose no limits and in the states where limits are imposed, there is no consensus.”
In recent years, several challenges to California’s strict firearms and weapons laws have been filed in San Diego federal court, and Friday’s ruling was one of the first major decisions in those cases based on the new Bruen standard.
Michel, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said the ruling represents “continued affirmation that the Bruen decision, and Heller before that, represent a sea change in the way courts must look at these absurdly restrictive laws.” The Heller decision, considered the most recent landmark gun decision before Bruen, in part established that the Second Amendment protected an individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense separate from militia hip.
Coincidentally, Friday’s ruling came down around the same time that President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris were announcing the creation of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention in a Rose Garden event. Biden touted his record on gun legislation and said he’s “not going to be quiet until we get it done: It’s time again to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom in a statement called the ruling “radical” and said the judge’s timing — on the same day as the White House announcement — was “politics, pure and simple.”
Benitez — known as “St. Benitez” among firearms enthusiasts for his gun-friendly rulings — and other federal judges in San Diego are continuing to consider other Second Amendment cases before them, including challenges to California’s bans on assault weapons and home-built firearms, as well as challenges to the state’s restrictions on firearm purchases based on the types of gun, the frequency of purchases and the age of the buyer.
