A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Friday struck down California’s ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines, saying the law violates the constitutionally guaranteed right to carry firearms. .
California’s ban on chargers with more than 10 rounds “goes to the heart of the Second Amendment: the right to armed self-defense,” argued appeals judge Kenneth Lee.
The magistrate added that this law had been passed in California “in the wake of mass shootings, heartbreaking and highly publicized,” but said that is not enough to justify a ban whose scope “is so wide that half of all chargers in the United States. States are now illegal to behave in California. “
The California attorney general’s office, Xavier Becerra, said it is reviewing the decision.
“Until further court proceedings are carried out, the suspension of the injunction issued by the district court remains in effect,” his office said in a statement. “The Attorney General remains committed to using every tool possible to uphold California’s gun safety laws and keep our communities safe.”
Becerra did not immediately say whether he would ask a larger appeals panel of 11 judges to reconsider the ruling of the three justices, or whether he would appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
According to the authorities, the youths carried the weapons in their backpacks.
It also did not immediately say whether the state would seek a delay of the ruling to avoid an immediate spree of high-capacity charger purchases if the lower court lifts its suspension.
California Rifle and Handgun Association attorney Chuck Michel called the decision a “great victory” for gun owners “and the right to choose to own a firearm to defend their family,” while a A group that favors firearms restrictions called it “dangerous” and hopes it will be overturned.
The ruling has national implications because other states have similar restrictions, though it immediately applies only to western states under the jurisdiction of the court of appeals.
Gun rights groups have been trying to bring these cases to the nation’s highest court now that it has a more conservative majority.
The National Rifle Association filed a lawsuit against California for ruling that the arms trade was not considered essential during the quarantine.
Aside from the ban on the chargers themselves, Michel and the Second Amendment Foundation said the case has legal implications for other gun restrictions should it reach judges because it could allow the court to clear up a dark legal debate over which standard. review should be used.
“The Supreme Court seems inclined to eliminate the complicated subjective tests that many courts have misapplied in Second Amendment cases, in favor of a clearer and more objective ‘originalist’ approach that considers the text, history and tradition of a law to determine that violations could be tolerated, ”Michel said in an email.
Friday’s ruling was a fractured decision in part because of that problem: Two of the three judges voted to scrap the state ban, while the third judge disagreed.
United States District Court Judge Barbara Lynn of Texas, who had been named the third judge on the appeals panel, said the majority’s ruling conflicts with the decisions of six other federal appeals courts across the country. , and with a 2015 ruling from a different panel of the Ninth Circuit itself. She said she would have defended California law based on that precedent.
Situation that forced the evacuation of President Trump, for a few minutes, during his usual press conference due to coronavirus.
“This ruling is an extreme case” given the previous decisions, said Eric Tirschwell, managing director of Everytown Law, the Everytown for Gun Safety-affiliated litigation team that favors firearm restrictions. “We hope that a panel at the bank will hear the case again and correct this erroneous, dangerous and out of tune decision.”
Friday’s decision upholds a 2017 ruling by San Diego-based US District Judge Roger Benitez, who blocked a law that would have prohibited gun owners from owning magazines with more than 10 rounds.
But he and the appeals court went further by declaring unconstitutional a state law that prohibited the purchase or sale of these types of magazines since 2000. That law had allowed those who owned the magazines before to keep them, but prohibited new sales or imports.