2nd Amendment

California's Ban on Magazines Holding More Than 10 Rounds Is Constitutional, 9th Circuit Decides

Despite such magazines being widely and lawfully used, and with the ban having been tossed out by other courts and court panels, the 9th Circuit thinks the ban does not violate the Second Amendment

|

In a 7-4 decision today from an 11-judge en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, California's 2016 ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds was found constitutional, despite earlier conclusions from a lower court and a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit that the ban violated the Second Amendment.

"Under the Second Amendment, intermediate scrutiny applies, and [the ban] is a reasonable fit for the important government interest of reducing gun violence," Judge Susan Graber wrote for the majority today in Duncan v. Bonta. "The statute outlaws no weapon, but only limits the size of the magazine that may be used with firearms, and the record demonstrates (a) that the limitation interferes only minimally with the core right of self-defense, as there is no evidence that anyone ever has been unable to defend his or her home and family due to the lack of a large-capacity magazine; and (b) that the limitation saves lives."

She added: "In the past half-century, large-capacity magazines have been used in about three-quarters of gun massacres with 10 or more deaths and in 100 percent of gun massacres with 20 or more deaths, and more than twice as many people have been killed or injured in mass shootings that involved a large-capacity magazine as compared with mass shootings that involved a smaller-capacity magazine."

"Accordingly," Graber concluded, "the ban on legal possession of large-capacity magazines reasonably supports California's effort to reduce the devastating damage wrought by mass shootings."

Graber's decision also denied the ban of such magazines constituted an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation, since owners of the now-illegal magazines can "modify or sell their nonconforming magazines" and thus "the law does not deprive owners of all economic use."

Writing in dissent, Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay complains that by use of "intermediate scrutiny" the 9th Circuit ensures that "so long as a firearms regulation aims to achieve a conceivably wise policy measure, the Second Amendment won't stand in its way. In effect, this means we simply give a blank check to lawmakers to infringe on the Second Amendment right. Indeed, post-Heller, we have never struck down a single firearms regulation."

The "manufacture, importation, or sale" of high-capacity magazines has been illegal in California since 2000. Possessing ones you already owned, though, had remained legal until the 2016 passage of Proposition 63, which "imposed a possible criminal penalty of imprisonment for up to a year for unlawful possession of large-capacity magazines."

Thanks to today's decision, the state is now free to enforce its ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds. (The ban had been blocked from going into effect while the case played out in court.) As is often the case with gun control laws, current or retired police officers, our special centurion class, are not subject to the law.

Recent history shows that it is very hard indeed to get citizens who see themselves as peacefully possessing formerly legal items to cooperate when the state seeks to take those items from them. In other words, thanks to today's 9th Circuit decision, expect more police harassment of fundamentally innocent gun owners and all of the collateral damage that such police actions invariably will cause. The end result will not be a safer California.

 

Scrutinizing Scrutiny

Contra Graber's decision, that "intermediate scrutiny" is how the Second Amendment should be dealt with might be 9th Circuit practice, but it is not settled Supreme Court doctrine. Indeed, in this very decision the 9th Circuit challenges the Supreme Court to tell them very explicitly if that Court thinks the 9th Circuit is misapplying its standard of scrutiny to the Second Amendment.

For those who like to imagine "shall make no law" settles the issue, the whole question of "scrutiny" might seem a deliberately confusing mess. But the 9th Circuit sees meaningful distinctions to be made, which it explains thusly: "Strict scrutiny applies only to laws that both implicate a core Second Amendment right and place a substantial burden on that right" while "Intermediate scrutiny applies to laws that either do not implicate a core Second Amendment right or do not place a substantial burden on that right."

As to what the different terms actually mean in judicial practice, strict scrutiny requires that a law indicates "both narrow tailoring to a compelling governmental interest and the use of the least restrictive means." Intermediate scrutiny, for its part, merely requires that a law shows "a reasonable fit with an important governmental interest."

The core of the Second Amendment right as the 9th Circuit reads the 2008 Heller decision is about self-defense in the home. And in their judgment, the magazine ban "imposes only a small burden on the Second Amendment right and that, accordingly, intermediate scrutiny is the appropriate lens."

The Court basically thinks that the imposition on the Second Amendment right by this law is just not a very big deal, in colloquial terms. As the decision today says, "The ban on large-capacity magazines has the sole practical effect of requiring shooters to pause for a few seconds after firing ten bullets, to reload or to replace the spent magazine. Nothing in the record suggests that the restriction imposes any more than a minimal burden on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms."

Graber did not find real-world evidence that self-defense in the home requires the use of the now-banned magazines, thus she concluded the magazine ban did not impact the right in its most important aspect. The plaintiffs tried to argue, calling on the Heller decision's reliance in places on how commonly used a weapon might be, that the fact at least half of American magazine buyers choose the kind California is banning shows it is a weapon element deserving of Second Amendment protection; Graber did not think that mattered.

The 9th Circuit's decision asserts that the state obviously has a compelling and important interest in trying to make some mass shootings potentially less lethal by restricting magazine size. The decision also insists that the law does not substantially damage the Second Amendment's core self-defense-in-the-home purpose. Thus, their "intermediate scrutiny" analysis leads to the conclusion the law is perfectly constitutional.

In the dissent from Judge Bumatay, he insists the majority got it wrong from the start; any sort of "scrutiny" analysis is not the way the Supreme Court wants them approaching the Second Amendment.

Bumatay looks back to Heller, the beginning of modern Second Amendment jurisprudence, for clues as to the right way to judge laws that implicate the Second Amendment. What courts, including his own 9th Circuit, should do is perform "an extensive analysis of the text, tradition, and history of the Second Amendment. Our court should have dispensed with our interest-balancing approach and hewed to what the Supreme Court told us to do."

Had they done that, Bumatay insists the 9th Circuit would have come to the opposite conclusion to today's majority decision from Graber. As Bumatay points out, "Firearms and magazines capable of firing more than ten rounds have existed since before the Founding of the nation. They enjoyed widespread use throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. They number in the millions in the country today. With no longstanding prohibitions against them, large-capacity magazines are thus entitled to the Second Amendment's protection."

The magazines the state banned "are lawfully owned by millions of people nationwide and come standard on the most popular firearms sold today" and "the Constitution protects the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms typically possessed for lawful purposes." Thus, the 9th Circuit should have kept the magazine ban buried.

Bumatay sees the 9th Circuit's scrutiny analysis as "nothing more than a black box used by judges to uphold favored laws and strike down disfavored ones." That method has never been how the Supreme Court intended lower courts to do Second Amendment jurisprudence, he insists, and he quotes various Supreme Court justices to support this belief.

One of the sharpest such quotes was from Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote in a 2020 dissent from a denial of certiorari in the case of Grewal v. Rogers that Heller "explicitly rejected the invitation to evaluate Second Amendment challenges under an 'interest balancing inquiry, with the interests protected by the Second Amendment on one side and the governmental public-safety concerns on the other.'"

Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke in a saltier separate dissent says that the 9th Circuit is driven "by a single-minded focus on ensuring that any panel opinions actually enforcing the Second Amendment are quickly reversed. The majority of our court distrusts gun owners and thinks the Second Amendment is a vestigial organ of their living constitution. Those views drive this circuit's caselaw ignoring the original meaning of the Second Amendment and fully exploiting the discretion inherent in the Supreme Court's cases to make certain that no government regulation ever fails our laughably 'heightened' Second Amendment scrutiny."

 

 

NEXT: New York City Is Funding America’s First Official Safe Injection Site for Drug Users

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

157 responses to “California's Ban on Magazines Holding More Than 10 Rounds Is Constitutional, 9th Circuit Decides

  1. 9th Circuit. Need we say more?

    1. Beat me to it:
      "...9th Circuit Decides"

      1. Seriously paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily. simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

        Try now……………… Visit Here

      2. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the New York State pistol association case.
        The one banning open carry and severely restricting concealed carry permits.
        We can hope that the Supreme Court will clearly come out and say strict scrutiny is the only level allowed in Second Amendment cases.

        The ninth circuit is pretending that the Second Amendment is only about self-defense.
        At least that is a step up from the usual you don’t need “10 rounds to hunt deer.”
        I dream about the day on the Supreme Court clearly states do you need a 30 round magazine to shoot tyrants.

    2. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome.HNm Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this site...

      For more info here.........VISIT HERE

  2. Who gives a shit. Leave California.

    1. If Trump had out CA under martial law it would be freer than it is now under Newsom.

      1. The same could be said about Leonid Brezhnev.

      2. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome.NHf Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this site...

        For more info here...........Earn-Opportunities

    2. You need to go as far east as WY, UT, and NM to escape the ninth circuit.

    3. It effects places like Arizona too since it is a 9th circuit decision. Fuck the 9th circuit.

      1. And you don’t even have any free Beast Ice to help soothe the pain.

        1. He claimed it wasn't ranked!

          1. You know that can’t be true.

          2. *pops another top* Uh-huh.

            1. Don't drink my beast! Better aged!

              1. Possession is 4.5 fifths of the law.

                1. Sounds constitutionally racist.

      2. Well it doesn't affect Arizona if Arizona doesn't pass a law restricting magazine size, or ban assault weapons, or decide only security guards can carry guns, all of which are good law in 9th circuit en-banc jurisprudence.

        It demonstrates 2 things: keep your state uncalifornicated, and the 9th circuit doesn't care a whit about the constitution.

        1. One of the biggest imports to arizona is californians.

          1. Maybe, but take EVERYTING that you have from CA and see what you got left? Funny, I'm the last of a family of 9 conservatives left in CA and they all bitch about Ca? Go figure. I tell them, " You are the same ones that the rest of the country bitches about." I enjoy pushing libs to the rest of the country so they can share in my pain.

    4. The 9th Circus covers more than just California.

      1. It's my libertarian answer. Switch states, switch jobs like you go down the street to a different pizza shop because you like the crust better.

    5. Let go California!!

  3. "The statute outlaws no weapon, but only limits the size of the magazine that may be used with firearms, and the record demonstrates (a) that the limitation interferes only minimally with the core right of self-defense, as there is no evidence that anyone ever has been unable to defend his or her home and family due to the lack of a large-capacity magazine; and (b) that the limitation saves lives."

    And you think the courts are going to overturn Qualified Immunity.

    1. "The statute outlaws no weapon, but only limits the size of the magazine that may be used with firearms"

      My first thought was that the FN P90 only holds 50 rounds, but then I saw that they actually do sell a civilian version with only ten rounds.

      https://fnamerica.com/products/rifles/fn-ps90-standard/?utm_source=meganav_by-series

      Are we to understand that if FN Herstal stopped selling the PS90 because it violated California's law, that would suddenly make the ban unconstitutional?

      1. Can anybody else think of a gun that isn't offered with anything but more than ten rounds?

        I know that there is a list of approved guns for sale in California, and if your gun isn't on the list, then you can't buy it in California.

        Here's the list.

        https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/certified-handguns/search

          1. Read it backwards.

            Anything on the roster will be offered with a 10 round magazine.

            1. Right.

              What I'm asking is if there is a gun that cannot be offered in California--because a civilian version isn't offered anywhere with only ten rounds.

              The court says, "The statute outlaws no weapon, but only limits the size of the magazine that may be used with firearms".

              Is that true? If you can find one weapon that isn't offered--because it doesn't exist in a version with less than 10 rounds--then the court is wrong on the facts and the law is unconstitutional.

              They do sell 1911's with less than 10 rounds. I bet Wilson sells them. They may not choose to have their weapon listed with California, but those versions are out there. Find me a gun that isn't offered with 10 rounds or less anywhere.

              1. I don’t think the 1911 is California compliant.

                1. I hope you were just joking. I have five 1911 legally purchased in California. Now that I no longer live there, I have a 2011 that holds 19+1!

              2. Guns are routinely offered with magazines of varying capacity.

                The magazine is not a barrier to getting on the roster. California hasn’t added a gun to the roster since 2013.

                “California's Crime Gun Identification Act of 2007 requires that all new semi-automtic pistols manufactured for sale in the state to be designed and equipped with microstamping technology. This means all new handgun models must imprint the gun’s unique mark in on the spent cartridge.”

                1. "The magazine is not a barrier to getting on the roster."

                  I'm not talking about the roster. I'm talking about the court's justification for declaring the law constitutional.

                  "The statute outlaws no weapon, but only limits the size of the magazine that may be used with firearms"

                  That's what the court is saying.

                  If there is a weapon out there somewhere that isn't offered anywhere with less than 10 rounds, then their justification for declaring the law constitutional is factually incorrect.

                  I thought FN's bullpup was only offered in 50 round and 30 round capacities, but I was wrong. Someone please find a weapon that is offered to civilians but isn't offered in a capacity of 10 rounds or less--so we can show that the justification for their ruling is factually incorrect.

                  1. I can’t say “always” or “never” but regularly see compliant firearms offered with just 10 round mags when the standard configuration holds more. Some other states have restrictions (I’m thinking Mass but maybe others).

                    Maybe something drum fed? Iirc the Thompson can also be had with stick mags. Looked it up. Not only offered with 10-round low capacity stick but they freaking offer 10-round drums too!

                    I think it would have to be a small production run type firearm. Maybe imported.

                    Try this:
                    https://iwi.us/product/upp9t/

              3. Do tube magazine rifles count? Or is it just removable magazines? At least for .22, they usually hold 15 or 16. 20-something if you load .22 short. I haven't seen shorter tube versions.

                1. I believe CA law specifically exempts tubular magazines like that, possibly because if they didn't, then banning the magazine would ban the firearm

                  1. Some where I see an AR with an integral 30 round magazine being fed with three 10 round stripper clips.

        1. Revolvers. First gen single stack ccw pistols.

          1. Because the law allows the owner to "permanently alter" the magazine to render it legal, the process can theoretically be applied to any non-compliant magazines in the absence of off-the-shelf compliant ones

        2. The roster is only for handguns. Long guns have a little less regulation, and there's even some loopholes around the 10 round limit for internal magazines; the KSG bullpup shotgun has 2 internal mag tubes that'll hold 7 rounds of 2.75" shells each (and can be loaded with 11 rounds each if you use Aguila "mini-shells"), it even has the deadliest of all firearm features (protruding pistol grip) because it's a pump-action rather than semi-auto.

        3. Can anybody else think of a gun that isn't offered with anything but more than ten rounds?

          Lots of micros. I own a compact .45 with 5 rounds and a micro .380 with 6 rounds.

          Most full sized modern semi-auto pistols will carry more than 10 rounds... because they can.

        4. I believe there is the Keltec CP33 with a standard 33 round magazine. It is a 22LR pistol. It apparently has questionable reliability. As sold, it comes with a 33 round magazine. I do not think that a smaller magazine is available (A 50 round magazine is available). It is not on the California list. You can imagine it being sold there if Keltec sold it with a 10 round magazine but probably not because.... California??

        5. The list is total B.S. They like to tout that there are hundreds of models on the list but according to their definition of "models" there are several "models" of Honda Civic DX 4 door 1.5 liter CVT sedans since every single paint color would indicate a different "model". How many Buck Marks are there based only on a different grip? Haven't looked but I'll say seven maybe less if Browning hasn't spent the money to certify the latest pink nylon whatever.

        6. Can anybody else think of a gun that isn't offered with anything but more than ten rounds?

          Hundreds. As others indicated, Kel-Tec makes several models. The KSG fits your description but doesn't necessarily belong on the roster because it's a long gun with integral tubes. Virtually every lever action rifle in history fits the same patchwork description. However, Kel-Tec offers the CP33 and the P50 (a P90 cousin) which fits the description.

          However, from there, the answer fuzzy in the "Yes, absolutely" direction. Virtually every pistol manufacturer makes a competition or 'race gun' model (or several) that's only available with 15+ round magazines. I'm talking Walther Q5 match pistols, CZ Shadow/Orange/Blue pistols, Canik TP9SFxs, Staccato Ultimate Competitor, etc., etc., etc. Frequently, they're compatible with lower-capacity magazines offered in related lines or patterned after more popular pistols, but you cannot buy one of the above weapons from the manufacturer without at > 10 rd. (usu. > 15 rd.) magazine.

          1. Also slightly OT: Since, 'tis the season, I reiterate my open wish to Kel-Tec Klaus to make a semi-automatic weapon that feeds from two independently removable magazines. Then, any limits on the number of rounds in the magazine effectively reduces the continuous firing rate/duration back to the barrel melting itself down.

            1. Why two magazines? Why not ask for a belt-fed semi-auto. No Magazine at all. 🙂

          2. the answer fuzzy in the "Yes, absolutely" direction

            Realized I nerded out a bit and should maybe be more clear about a more 30,000 ft. view. You're trying to argue in good faith against a bad faith opposition. It wouldn't surprise me at all if you laid a heap of guns that can't be bought and sold anywhere in CA in front of the judge and they found just one that had been modified out of state to make it CA legal, used the FFL transfer fees as proof that the one instance of one model sold in the state, and declared that, therefor, all models were free from the legal imposition.

            I don't know, but might surmise that's the reason that, as Bubba points out, they haven't added a gun to the list since 2013. Almost as soon as the law passed all kinds of mechanical and design workarounds circumvented the law. One, the 'bullet button' (basically, the law dictates the magazine can't be released without a tool, well a bullet is a tool) had legislation introduced against it and it was overwhelmingly defeated. The list gives the optics that something was done and, until the next San Bernadino shootout, they don't need to incur the ire of voters by pushing unpopular legislation and can just let the courts torture the desired legislation into existence.

          3. As I mentioned above tubular magazines and lever actions are exempted under CA law. As for for purchasing a firearm from the manufacturer, you can't. Not as an individual anyway, and FFLs are allowed to have large-capacity magazines, so under CA law the FFL would simply be required to remove the manufacturers magazine before transferring the otherwise legal firearm to the purchaser. The offending magazine can then be "permanently altered" to accept no more than 10 rounds, and thus rendered CA-legal

            The lawmakers in CA have thought this through well enough that you aren't going to find any simple "gotcha" to overturn it. Even if you do find a firearm that can never be rendered CA-legal on the magazine front, CA still maintains they have the power to ban firearms generally (via their unsafe handgun roster, assault weapons ban, and other laws) and courts have upheld that multiple times as well

            1. As I mentioned above tubular magazines and lever actions are exempted under CA law.

              Right, I was reiterating that there's a fuzziness between Ken's definition and the law/roster. Similarly, the rest of your post is a more succinct restatement of my insomnia-fueled exposition. Ken's attempting a good faith argument against bad faith actors. It may work with SCOTUS, it will never, at least for the foreseeable future anyway, work in the 9th circuit. Likely, even if SCOTUS says otherwise.

    2. It is still an infringement.

  4. Cops and the military don’t need more than ten rounds either.

  5. Nobody would ever think to tape 2 magazines together. Or bring more guns. Or ignore the law.

    1. Someone wanting to cause mass mayhem and murder would never (ever!) think of doing this.

    2. Or just bring a big bag of extra magazines. The VA Tech shooter used only 2 handguns (one of them was a 22LR), and had no magazines with over 10 round capacity.

      There's videos on youtube showing the actual delay having to reload twice creates, both for trained and inexperienced shooters. For the complete newbie, I think it was a total of maybe 2.5 seconds or so to fire 30 somewhat aimed rounds using 3 10-round mags vs one 30-round. Trained shooters doing "tactical reloads" (and knowing they're going to have to) can get that gap down to less than 1 second if I remember correctly.

      1. I just went through an Appleseed pistol clinic and the two-hand rapid fire courses require 10 shots with a magazine change in 15 seconds.

      1. Filled with ANFO.

  6. How many shots did Rittenhouse fire? For those that were counting, it was 8.

    Oh, and fuck Joe Biden, the 9th circuit and Beto O'Shitweasel.

    1. So if that had happened in California, only 1 more attacker would have needed to heroically weigh in with their scooter and the mob would have been able to finish the young racist.

  7. Mass murders are the kinds of people that really don’t follow many laws.

    1. Nobody needs more than 10 murders in a single lifetime.

  8. No single person has ever changed the outcome of a federal election, therefore it is ok to limit voting to 10 elections in a lifetime.

    But seriously. I love citing the fact that no mass murderer has ever chosen a 10 round magazine. That lawyer logic is amazing.

    1. What about the mass murderers that used bombs, or arson?

      1. We can't speak about BLM

    2. In 2020, using mailed-in ballots, some people voted for Zhou Bai-dung way more than 10 times.

  9. Will Reason, a magazine, be restricted to ten Roundups?

    1. No, I think that is all she wrote.

    2. Roundup is a herbicide, not a cartridge for a firearm.

      1. Glyphossault

  10. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke in a saltier separate dissent says that the 9th Circuit is driven "by a single-minded focus on ensuring that any panel opinions actually enforcing the Second Amendment are quickly reversed. The majority of our court distrusts gun owners and thinks the Second Amendment is a vestigial organ of their living constitution. Those views drive this circuit's caselaw ignoring the original meaning of the Second Amendment and fully exploiting the discretion inherent in the Supreme Court's cases to make certain that no government regulation ever fails our laughably 'heightened' Second Amendment scrutiny."

    Based.

    1. I don't remember reading as catty and bitchy of a summary in an official Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion, as is in this one. 'Judge X felt compelled to respond because of the personal tone of the dissent...' I mean, what the fuck? Write your opinion of what the law means. Not that you were pissed at how snippy Van Dyke may or may not have been.

      So, how long before we reenact Sumner and Brooks on the Senate Chamber floor?

  11. As is often the case with gun control laws, current or retired police officers, our special centurion class, are not subject to the law.

    In my mind this violates the spirit of Article I, Section XIII:

    No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

    Ex-cops are treated like royalty. They aren't subject to the law and are given special privileges. May as well be dukes or something.

    1. sarcasmic
      November.19.2021 at 1:45 pm
      Flag Comment Mute User
      I don't carry a gun. I'm not a great shot and I lack training. Doing so would be inviting trouble that I don't know how to handle.

      So I don't put myself into the situation this kid put himself into.

      It just sucks.

    2. I'm almost curious as to what the insult troll has to say. Almost. Because any and all attempts at civil conversation end with "You voted for Biden you lazy alcoholic! You're unemployed and live in your mom's basement! Your wife left you for a cop and you're a terrible father!"

      Should I unmute?

      Nah.

      1. Weird how you rant so badly against your own admissions. Truly a fool. Lol.

        1. I’m thinking he didn’t want to unmute you out of respect for your high ranking.

          1. I have to pass Chunby again.

            1. Pass me a beer? Thanks, but I have plenty. :p

            2. Is Chumby winning the sarcbowl now?

              I don't know what I'm doing wrong... am I too nice?

              1. I spoil him.

  12. I recall when the 'High Incident Bandits' robbed the bank in North Hollywood way back in the '90s. It was a major milestone in police militarization, with cops having to raid local gunstores for 'assault rifles' and using this as an excuse as to why their low-capacity pistols and shotguns were insufficient. 'They just didn't have enough ammo to meet the threat,' they claimed. 'It's a warzone out there and they need suppressive fire capability, like the Infantry!'

    Then again, considering that every government worker's life is worth 10 - hell, maybe 50 times - the life of the average citizen, it makes sense! Certainly, no average citizen would ever find themselves on the receiving end of an 'illegal assault weapon' brandished by a criminal who doesn't give a damn about magazine capacity laws (or a government agent with similar disdain for the law) and this totally just ruling makes perfect sense!

  13. More than 10 rounds BANNED is OK despite the 2nd amendment! (So says libs, at least). 2A kiss my ass!!!

    More than 10 anti-liberal-perspective "lies" per post? BANNED is OK per liberals, despite the 1A and Section 230!!! 1A kiss my ass!!!

    More than 10 (or 1 or 2?) anti-conservative-perspective "lies" per post? BANNED is OK (WONDERFUL even) per conservatives, despite the 1A and Section 230!!! (See "Parler bans liberals" search-string; example = https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/conservatives-flock-free-speech-social-media-app-which-has-started-n1232844 ). 1A kiss my ass!!!

    New day! Same old hypocritical bullshit! More news at 11:00!!!

    (PS, 1A doesn't even apply to private property owners, like web-site owners. See if power-lusting assholes EVER agree?)

    1. Uh oh. Sarc saw what I wrote above so he brought in his sock to shit post.

      1. (PS, 1A doesn't even apply to private property owners, like web-site owners. See if power-lusting assholes EVER agree?)

        Power-lusting asshole = = Der JesseBahnFuhrer will NEVER agree!!! ANYTHING that stands between Der JesseBahnFuhrer and RUTHLESS POWAH must be blown away, at ALL costs!!!

        (Never say that Der JesseBahnFuhrer has no principles! Its principle #1 is POWAH for MEEEEE!!!! And My Tribe, if they agree TOTALLY with MEEEEE!!!!))

        1. That's right sarcasmic, spew your gibberish like a wet fart.

        2. TDS-addled spastic asshole flagged.

  14. You would save more lives by banning the post office and postal workers

  15. "(b) that the limitation saves lives."

    What? Did the judge produce any statistics to support this, or just anecdotes?

    1. Suspect it's safe to guess it's an unsupported assertion.

      1. In current, strict scientific standards and scrutiny, saving projecticons is equivalent to saving lives. What kind of religious-fanatic Luddite would insist that you have to demonstrate physical evidence of actual lives saved in order to contravene a policy of saving lives?

  16. The decision also insists that the law does not substantially damage the Second Amendment's core self-defense-in-the-home purpose

    Looks like the public school system has dumbed us down to the point of believing the 2A is about “home protection”.

    I guess that’s an improvement on thinking the only legitimate use for guns is hunting, as per the Democratic Party platform.

    Progress! Perhaps a libertarian moment?

  17. Easy solution. When your home is invaded and you use up your nine rounds and the attacker keeps coming, just hit him over the head with an intermediate scrutiny.

    1. Acquire a shitload of legal magazines. Fill up some illegal magazines. Load the intruder with 60 pieces of lead. Put the 30s away and pull out the appropriate number of legal ones. Call the cops.

      1. Then complain how badly it sucks that Rittenhouse is free after committing the act of self defense. I mean it just sucks.

        1. "I had to, the dude was going all Ashley Babbitt on me!"

          1. "If Kyle Rittenhouse and Ashli Babbitt had been in concentration camps, fewer people would've died!"

  18. All personal gun owners are equal except current and retired police officers are more equal.

    1. Retired police officers may as well be nobility. Nobility doesn't have to be hereditary. Just a class of people who are considered to be noble and are held to a different standard than everyone else.

      1. So for their gun privilege's, retired cops are required to keep up on their shooting skill training?

        1. No they are not. But they've often been trained prior. And it is considered a benefit just like their pensions. While I hate all laws that offer preferences it seems to be a union gift which California is known for.

          1. 'Often.' Dinger, please.

  19. “I know what you’re thinking. ‘Did he fire ten shots or only nine’? Well to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I kind of lost track myself. But being that this may be an a now illegal high capacity magazine, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well do ya, punk?”

  20. Well, in all fairness, the 2nd guarantees our right to bear arms. No where does it guarantee us the right to ammunition. 🙂

    1. ...And buying only cars without any tires is totes cool.... /s
      What an idiotic argument.

  21. What's the California limit for arrows in a quiver?.............Robin

  22. Sounds like an infringement to me.
    But then I bailed out of that shithole country in 1984.

  23. So I'm at Nordstrom's and eleven man flash mob robbers are coming at me swinging skateboards. On the voice mail to my widow, should I explain that magazine limits are just a "small burden"?

    1. I find it strange that the media essentially ignored a security officer being shot in one of the robbery mobs.

    2. On the voice mail to my widow, should I explain that magazine limits are just a "small burden"?

      "Widow" implies white male over the age of 18. Ergo, I don't give a shit what you tell her. Even if you literally tell her "The high capacity magazine ban unequivocally cost me my life. Lobby to have it repealed so that this doesn't happen to anyone else." she can go fuck herself with your violent, opportunistic rhetoric.

  24. Ban on sentences containing more than 10 words found constitutional.

    1. Nobody needs more than 10 words to defend individual liberty.

  25. And the seven judges background? Religion/Culture? Catholic, Jewish, Protestant.

  26. "there is no evidence that anyone ever has been unable to defend his or her home and family due to the lack of a large-capacity magazine"

    This is someone who didn't even read the file. Susan Gonzalez emptied the 10 round magazine of the Ruger 22 and the intruder wound up pointing his still loaded gun to her head demanding she give up the pistol. I'd hardly call that a successful defense when the defenders are both shot twice and the assailant takes what he wants. No, fortunately the defenders didn't die but forced capitulation isn't be the definition of a successful defense.

  27. Consider this tonight for the morning links:

    For those of you who still want to pretend that there is merely a possible bias to the media, but certainly nothing more..... After completely ignoring the story for months and months... Every single major left leaning publication put out stories demanding that CNN fire Chris Cuomo because he tried to help his brother skate on the allegations of sexual harassment.

    All of them. On the same day. Using the same language. Even Rolling Stone, for crying out loud. As if covering CNN opinion hosts is a hot button beat for Rolling Stone.

    "Any other reporter would have been fired immediately".

    They all just independently came up with this at the same time.

    This from the same group that all decided that a red SUV accidentally drove through a parade, which is definitely not a story worth further exploration.... On the same day. Not even a single dissenting voice.

    The same group that unanimously decided that the son of the leading presidential candidate having proof of corruption and possibly statutory rape on a laptop was a Russian hoax. On the same day. (Which was laugh out loud ludicrous... Even the Bidens did not deny it was real)

    The same group that unanimously has decided that the project veritas story is a non-story. (An administration going after journalist's sources is automatically a massive story). And now the diary that even right wing sites passed on because it could not be verified has been verified by this action.... And the juicy bits in that thing are rumored to be way, way, way worse than hiring prostitutes to do a watersports show.... (Something covered as nauseam for years, despite being completely made up out of whole cloth). So we have a diary by a president's daughter that makes some very serious allegations.... And these same people have all decided... Unanimously.... That they have no interest in looking into it. Remember, these same people said that a teenager roughhousing on a bed with a teenage girl for 30 seconds 35 years ago at a party that is well documented to have never occurred was worthy of weeks of FBI investigation and national news coverage all day, every day. But these same people are unanimous on this one.

    But you can explain those with a healthy dose of partisanship.

    You cannot explain the sudden decision to collectively force Cuomo out at CNN as partisan. And you cannot even put forward a cogent theory as to how they all randomly came to this sudden conviction on the same day at the same time... Not without a central command and control mechanism. There is just no way that this is even remotely plausible unless someone is at the center of the spider's web calling the shots.

    Why is this not concerning to you? This is a big deal. A really big deal. And nobody even notices.

    1. There is, without a doubt, an "unnatural" consensus that comes from establishment media voices.

    2. I guess the command went out from DNC headquarters.

      This in many ways is far more perverse than Izvestia or Pravda. They were compelled by the force of the state to lie and gaslight. Nobody's forcing CNN or the Rolling Stone.

      Democratic candidate Marianne Williamson remarked on this to Russell Brand. She said whenever Tom Perez called Jeff Zucker about something, Anderson Cooper would lead with it that night.
      https://youtu.be/FEVtuXtgrqM?t=118

    3. Obama: ‘Google, Facebook Would Not Exist’ Without Government Funding

      https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-google-facebook-would-not-exist-without-government-funding

      And I'd place bets it's not JUST Facebook and Twitter. Did everyone forget already that the 'Build Back Better' Act fully subsidizes journals wages?? As-if that *free* money isn't going to come with strings.

    4. And nobody even notices.

      Slight disagreement. *Some* people *pretend* not to notice. Some are even surprised when they discover that a majority of the people actually did notice. Some, even after getting surprised, simply go back to pretending that nobody is noticing.

    5. Like we weren't expecting Journolist 3.0... And why not? Nobody got punished for the first two. Hell, Weigel got promoted to the Post after he got caught.

      "You get more of what you reward, and less of what you punish."

    6. Some folks refer to cascading narratives, and the fact that the headlines, ledes, talking points, and wording are often interchangeable rather often.

  28. https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1465862435538186241?t=Cr7w-BZb__RVnB66bntePQ&s=19

    Breaking: In downtown Minneapolis at a #BLM protest against ex-officer Kim Potter, the rioters attack and chase a vehicle in the street.
    [Video]

  29. https://twitter.com/tahliasarv/status/1465819678299672576?t=l9dCs5XUgbPP7RDoD1XNkQ&s=19

    NT Police confirm they’re looking for three people who scaled the quarantine facility’s fence before 5 this morning @9NewsAUS @9NewsDarwin
    [Link]

    1. https://twitter.com/MichaelPSenger/status/1465869413383503873?t=ijPG7YtBCNAom74wdVMgpw&s=19

      BREAKING: Police set up checkpoints after several wards escaped from government quarantine facility in Howard Springs, Australia. So far, three fugitives have been caught; all three tested negative for COVID-19.

      1. Let me know when Australians stop allowing themselves to be arrested. Really let me know when they discover that the best defense is a good offense.

        1. Bet they will need more than 10 rounds for an effective defense.

      2. Going forward, all non-compliant detainees COVID victims carriers potential carriers, will be sedated, either by injection or through the use of nitrous oxide. We won't be *gassing* gassing them or subjecting them to unnecessary medical procedures against their, we'll just be, you know, "gassing" them and temporarily sedating and treating them as necessary against their... will for the good of the race larger population.

  30. This will be overturned by the S. Ct. The Constitution clearly and definitively sets the maximum number of bullets that a magazine can hold at 12.

  31. '"Judge Susan Graber wrote for the majority today in Duncan v. Bonta. "The statute outlaws no weapon, but only limits the size of the magazine that may be used with firearms, and the record demonstrates (a) that the limitation interferes only minimally with the core right of self-defense, as there is no evidence that anyone ever has been unable to defend his or her home and family due to the lack of a large-capacity magazine; and (b) that the limitation saves lives."'

    This is a completely irrelevant statement. According to Kleck, and a couple of dozen follow-up studies, the vast majority (99%) of folks who successfully defend themselves in the home with a firearm never have to fire their weapon at all. Using her logic, we don't even NEED ammunition. Geesh.

  32. I didn't realize the 2nd amendment's only purpose was to defend a person's home. Learn something every day I guess.
    Maroooons

  33. If you are not confident that 10 rounds are enough to neutralize your target, let your wife, mother, sister or daughter take care of business. Women have a lower center of gravity and I think that gives them a distinct advantage in shooting from the standing position. I think they have better balance.

    1. daughter
      ...
      Women have a lower center of gravity and I think that gives them a distinct advantage in shooting from the standing position. I think they have better balance.

      Women consistently score lower than men in head to head competitions segregated by gender in analysis after the fact. Other factors, such as age, experience, and strength/physical fitness, can overcome the difference, but whether these factors are controlled for or disregarded, women frequently come out worse, but never better statistically or anomalously better.

      Given the explanatory confounding factors, it's arguable that the 10 round ban disadvantages women, especially as the number of targets increases. A man can more effectively neutralize 10 attackers with 10 rounds of a 10mm than a woman can with 10 rounds of the same 10 mm. Give both 11 or 15 rounds of a 9mm, a .38, or a .22 and the factors mitigating women's performance or biasing in favor of men's performance are effectively overcome.

      1. "A man can more effectively neutralize 10 attackers with 10 rounds of a 10mm than a woman can with 10 rounds of the same 10 mm."

        How do you know this? Are there any instances where a man has neutralized 10 attackers with 10 rounds more effectively than a woman attempting the same?

        1. ++

          If the performance of women in the shooting sports is any indication, women are just effective at putting "lead on target" as men. While it is true that fewer women compete in the shooting sports, at any given moment, a number of records are held by women. I remember several years back when the 1000-yard world record, and several other records, were held by a lady Marine.

          Men might, on the average, have more experience, and be more effective, but it has nothing to do with gender.

          1. An example:

            "Recent history also suggests that woman can perform alongside men in shooting competitions. At the 1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona, female competitor Shan Zhang of China became the Olympic gold medalist that year in mixed-event skeet competition. Over two days of competition she produced a score of 373 out of 375, a new Olympic and world record. She also became the first woman to topple the men in the history of the Olympic Games' shooting competition. Since that time, no mixed events have been held in an Olympic shooting competition."

            https://www.usashooting.org/news/2012/2/28/195-usa-shooting-viewpoint--men-vs-women-in-competitive-shooting

          2. What the fuck is wrong with the science denying feminist retards? Do you not get laid enough and think that if you white knight for the ladies in the shooting sports competitions they'll sleep with you?

            If I'd said, on average, female paying mantises were larger and stronger than male praying mantises. You two dumbfucks wouldn't give two shits about the 1% of mantis species where the male and female were the same size or that, given certain breeding and environmental conditions, the male and female size and strength disparities disappear. It wouldn't be the least bit controversial.

            But when I say that women generally perform worse for a number of factors that can be overcome. You illiterate retards interpret that as "women are feeble invalids who don't even know how to hold a gun properly and therefore can't beat a man ever".

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7068418/

            Regarding the shooting performance comparison between men and women, Mon-López, Tejero-González and Calero [3] revealed that men obtain better results in pistol shooting than women; however, there were no performance differences between men and women in rifle shooting. Similarly, Goldschmied and Kowalczyk [4] found no differences between gender in Olympic rifle events (air rifle and small-bore rifle), and Kemnitz et al. [5] found no differences in military rifle shooting. Contrary to these results, men performed better than women in other sports [6], and specifically in shooting, women fatigue more than men when firing with certain types of rifles [7]. Moreover, policemen performed better than policewomen with guns [8], and men performed better with 9mm pistols than women [9]. However, these results contrast with those of Vučković et al. [10] who only found performance differences between genders at the beginning of a pistol training programme.
            ...
            3. Results
            The pistol shooting performance contrast between men and women is outlined in Table 2. It was observed that men scored higher than women in both junior category, where men scored 564.293 and women 560.471 points (P = 0.016, δ = 0.434, % = 0.677), as well as in the senior category, where men reached 570.400 and women 564.633 points (P < 0.001, δ = 0.601, % = 1.011). In the same way, when ranking positions were contrasted, differences were found in four of the six ranking ranges in the junior category and five ranking ranges in the senior category, always favourable for men, who achieved higher scores than women with large effect sizes between 1.245 and 11.405 and performance percentage differences between 0.189% and 1.637%.

            How fucked up does your manhood and perception of womanhood have to be that such accurate and softly-delivered facts are offensive?

        2. How do you know this? Are there any instances where a man has neutralized 10 attackers with 10 rounds more effectively than a woman attempting the same?

          Yes.

          “It is the finding of this Study Group that the FBI should pursue a ‘family of weapons’ that would provide sufficient flexibility to our agents based upon personal abilities, personal preferences, and assignment. These weapons should include revolvers, 9mm pistols, 10mm pistols, .45-caliber pistols, and .40-caliber pistols.

          “It should be noted that the .40 caliber Smith & Wesson that was developed parallel to the development of our 10mm round and pistol achieves approximately the same ballistic characteristics as the FBI 10mm light. Because of its shorter case, a .40 caliber Smith and Wesson pistol can be made smaller, and it can be double stacked to allow for higher capacity magazines.”

          The group also recognized the possibility of including another Smith & Wesson model, the smaller 1086 in double-action only. They wrote, “One new female Agent of small stature and hand size was determined to be incapable of qualifying with the Model 1076 pistol.

          The report of the Wound Ballistic Workshop has been studied by countless law enforcement agencies as well as the majority of ammunition manufacturers.

          This agent’s hands were not large enough to cycle the double action trigger pull on the Model 1076. As a result, she had not qualified with this weapon. Unit Chief PLEDGER arranged for the purchase of a Model 1086 10mm Smith & Wesson in double action only. After being issued this weapon, and after an appropriate period of training, she qualified on her next attempt with this weapon.

          Again, what fucked up gender-mutilated dystopia do you retards live in that the mere suggestion that women's hands are generally smaller and weaker than men's is remotely controversial. This wasn't some recruit who, 10 min. before trying to qualify hadn't ever done a pushup or picked up a gun, it was a qualified agent.

          You misogynist asshats don't give two shits about women. You would specifically step on their differences to tell them they can deal with your arbitrary 10 round limit or suck your dick.

          1. Sorry, dropped the link:
            https://gundigest.com/article/10mm-handguns-and-the-fbi?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GD_AR15vsAK47&utm_content=GD_AR15vsAK47+CID_948e0f966b80f90ed6431c6f75a9e605&utm_source=Campaign%20Monitor&utm_term=Read%20More

            And, just in case you were wondering: Bill Vanderpool is a retired Special Agent with the FBI, former SWAT sniper and member of the Bureau’s Firearms Training Unit. Vanderpool is the only agent in FBI history to have fired a “Possible” — an official perfect score — in both the FBI and FBI National Academy.

            He was the instructor who trained the above woman to get her requalified. She specifically reached out to him about the issue.

            Fuck you ignorant misogynist women's march parade floats.

            1. If you can't hit your target with 10 rounds, hand the weapon over to the nearest woman, however emasculating that may feel. If there are no women around, then an FBI shooting instructor, male or female, is an acceptable substitute.

    2. The proof that you are lying is the first time you wrote 'I think,' which is pretty clearly untrue. Your assertion is subjective, not merely due to your bias, but on a case by case basis. You compound it with repetition, with another assertion which is again entirely subjective and situational. But, at least you remain biased, so there's that.

      1. I grow tired of your inane blathering and insults.

        1. Fuck off and die, asshole.

  34. This will go the Supreme Court, where Roberts will say its unconstitutional until he has to vote and then he will be all for the magazine limit.

    1. I think Roberts' opinion is meaning less and less. Even with him siding with the libs, there should be a majority to overturn this.

  35. The law should to be applied to every one and every entity equally. So this means that Police, Military, Federal Agents, every one with ZERO exceptions should have to follow the law exactly the same.

    Same with every other law. Laws should apply to everyone, without any carve outs. If the law can't be applied evenly then it should not be a law in the first place.

    1. If a police officer can reasonably expect to face a threat requiring more than 10 rounds, then a private citizen can also reasonably expect to be facing that the same threat, while waiting for the police to arrive

  36. It will of course be overturned. The ninth never tires of getting skull fucked on appeal.

  37. How soon does the Supreme Court get to overturn this stupid decision?

  38. Of course most mass murders were committed with guns having “large capacity” when they define that term arbitrarily at ten rounds. That means normal-capacity magazines designed for the firearm will be considered to be large for their analysis.
    Also, small magazines harm the defender more than the attacker. The attacker can bring as many magazines as he pleases and gets to change magazines at a time of his choosing. The defender has only the number of magazines he thought he needed and has to decide whether to risk changing magazines during a lull, losing the remaining rounds, or risk being forced to reload under fire. One reason the police support low-capacity magazines is that it gives them, acting as an attacker, an opportunity to move closer while the defender changes magazines. That calculus does not change when the attacker isn’t the police.

  39. Home defense/self defense are *not* the core right protected by the 2nd Amendment.

    The 2nd exists to protect the right of the people to match the government's standing army (which it's not supposed to have) so that when in the course of human events it becomes necessary...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

  40. 9th Circuit would probably rule that 2A doesn't protect a person who got arrested for finding a board with a nail in it and picking it up. Half the judges on the circuit are probably eager to get that test case in front of their bench.

  41. > that the limitation interferes only minimally with the core right of self-defense

    I guess "shall not be infringed" is up for debate.

Comments are closed.