MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

Mostly law professors, blogging on whatever we please since 2002 · Hosted by The Washington Post, 2014-2017 · Hosted by Reason 2017 · Sometimes contrarian · Often libertarian · Always independent

Ninth Circuit Upholds Preliminary Injunction Against Magazine Confiscation in California

The courts continue to block a California law to confiscate magazines over 10 rounds.

Today the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal district count injunction against a California law to confiscate firearms magazines that hold over 10 rounds. The Ninth Circuit's 2-1 opinion is here, and the dissent is here. My analysis of the 2017 district court opinion is here.

Background: In 2016, California voters enacted an initiative that, among other things, dispossessed magazine owners of their property. Possession of firearms magazines over 10 rounds was forbidden. Current owners of magazines required to turm them over to the government, or to a gun store, or destroy the magazines, or move them out of state. The ban was to take effect on July 1, 2017.

In late June 2017, Federal District Judge Roger Benitez (S.D. Calif.) issued a preliminary injunction against the confiscation. He found that the plaintiffs had established a liklihood that they would succeed on the Second Amendment and Fifth Amendment claims (the latter involving taking of property without just compensation). The case is Duncan v. Becerra, since Xavier Becerra is Attorney General of California. The case is being litigated by Michel Associates, the leading firearms law firm in California.

Issue on appeal: In an appeal of a preliminary injunction, the appellate court reviews the district court's injunction for "abuse of discretion." The appellate judges "determine only whether the district court correctly distilled the applicable rules of law and exercised permissible discretion in applying those rules to the facts at hand." The 2-1 appellate panel held that the district court had not abused its discretion, and so the preliminary injunction was upheld.

The majority opinion was written by Judge N.R. Smith, who was nominated to the 9th Circuit in 2005 by President Bush, and confirmed in 2007. Judge Deborarh A. Batts joined the opinion. She was appointed to the Southern District of New York in 1994 by President Clinton, is now on senior status, and was sitting on the panel by designation. The dissent was written by Judge John Clifford Wallace; he was appointed in 1972 by President Nixon, and has been on senior status since 1996.

Rationale: For the majority, this seemed to be an easy case. The district judge had correctly found that prohibiting magazines over 10 rounds implicates the Second Amendment right, as other courts have done. (Indeed, as nearly every court to consider the issue has done.)

The next question was whether the district court had applied the correct legal test. The district court had applied one test based on the straightforward language of Heller (which prohibits bans on arms that "in common use" and "typically used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes"). The district court also applied a means-end balancing test, namely intermediate scrutiny. The result was the same under either test.

According to the Ninth Circuit, the district court had correctly followed the rules of Second Amendment intermediate scrutiny created by the Ninth Circuit. Because magazine bans are not traditional in the U.S., the government had the burden of proving that the ban was lawful.

The district court finding that the government had failed to carry its burden of proof was not an abuse of discretion. "The district court's review of the evidence included numerous judgment calls regarding the quality, type, and reliability of the evidence, as well as repeated credibility determinations." The district court had concluded that magazine confiscation was not a good fit for any of the government's proferred interests.

On appeal, "California articulates no actual error made by the district court, but, rather, multiple instances where it disagrees with the district court's conclusion or analysis regarding certain pieces of evidence. This is insufficient to establish that the district court's findings of fact and its application of the legal standard to those facts were 'illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from facts in the record.'"

In a 2015 case, a different three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit had upheld a district court's decision not to grant a preliminary injunction against a similar confiscation law enacted by a Bay Area town. Fyock v. Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2015). Although the evidence in the Fyock and Duncan cases have some differences, the key point was that neither decision by the district judges in those cases as an "abuse of discretion. Rather, the decision to grant or not grant the preliminary injunction was based on the district judges' reasonable discretion in weighing the evidence before them. When a preliminary injunction is being appealed, the only job for the appellate judges is see if there is an abuse of discretion; the appellate judges are not supposed to re-weigh the evidence. The fact that two district judges saw similar evidence and came to different conclusions does not mean that either judge is guilty of abuse of discretion.

The dissent: The majority wrote that Judge Wallace's dissent was improperly reweighing the evidence. For example, Judge Wallace wrote that the confiscation law could be upheld based on some statistics supplied by one of Michael Bloomberg's organizations. Yet the district court had specifically explained why those statistics lacked reliability and credibility: they were "incomplete studies from unreliable sources upon which experts base speculative explanation and predictions."

Like the Second Circuit in another magazine ban case, Judge Wallace seemed to favor a very weak standard of intermediate scrutiny review for Second Amendment cases: as long as the government could provide some evidence, that was sufficient--notwithstanding the other side's evidence showed that the government evidence is flawed or unpersuasive. (My analysis of the Second Circuit case is here.)

Fifth Amendment takings: The majority found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision on the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. The statute obviously deprived the plaintiffs of their property. The fact that the State was exercising its police power did not grant the State an exemption from the Takings Clause.

The dissent pointed out that the plaintiffs could still retain their magazines by moving them out of state, so there was no physical taking. The majority pointed out that even if the plaintiffs could retain ownership, the new statute forbade them to retain possession.

Next steps: While the preliminary injunction appeal was in progress, District Judge Benitez has kept the case moving forward. Judge Wallace wrote that "The district court is to be commended for following our constant admonition not to delay trial preparation awaiting an interim ruling on the preliminary injunction....The district court has properly proceeded with deliberate speed towards a trial, which will allow it to decide this case with a full and complete record and a new review. ... I credit the district court for ensuring the case did not stall awaiting disposition of this appeal."

Attorney General Becerra has the option of petitioning the full Ninth Circuit for an en banc rehearing. Such petitions typically take at least several months. By the time an en banc court was assembled, with time for pro/con briefing and oral argument, the preliminary injunction issue might be moot, since the district court by then would have issued a final ruling. But Ninth Circuit en banc can be very hostile to the Second Amendment, as Justices Thomas and Gorsuch observed in dissenting from denial of certiorari in a Ninth Circuit en banc case nullifying the right to bear arms. So a speedy en banc reversal of today's decision is not out of the question.

My brief: Joseph Greenlee and I submitted an amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit. The brief argued that the correct standard of review is the one from Heller: bans on arms "in common use" that are "typically used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes" are categorically unconstitutional. The brief provided data showing that magazines over 10 rounds meet this standard, as the standard has been elucidated by various lower courts.

Conversely, Heller allows bans on arms that are "dangerous and unusual." Magazines over 10 rounds (especially, handgun magazines of 11-21) are the opposite of unusual. They are the standard magazines for many common firearms. If the California law had been limited only to non-standard magazines (e.g., a 35-round aftermarket magazine for handguns), the analysis might be different.

Nor are all magazines over 10 rounds "dangerous," especially when compared to handguns. Handguns are about 1/3 of the gun supply, but they are used in about 2/3 of gun crime. In contrast, so-called "large" magazines are used in mass shootings (the only types of crimes for which the Attorney General attempted to justify the ban) in the same proportion that they exist in the overall supply of magazines (about half).

Heller did not assert that handguns are in fact superior to long guns for self-defense; rather, Heller was based on the fact that handguns are often the chosen means for self-defense by law-abiding citizens. Likewise, magazines over 10 rounds are commonly chosen for self-defense, and the Second Amendment precludes the government from second-guessing common self-defense choices. There are good reasons for law-abiding citizens to have such magazines, because the defender's reserve ammunition capacity can be decisive in whether or not criminal attackers prevail.

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.

  • Eddy||

    My first reaction to the headline was that California officials must be running around taking those free periodicals out of news racks.

  • California Right To Carry||

    "[I]n a Ninth Circuit en banc case nullifying the right to bear arms." The en banc decision in Peruta v. San Diego did not nullify the right to keep and bear arms. That decision was limited to concealed carry which three US Supreme Court decisions have said is not a Second Amendment right.

    Professor Volokh, you said that concealed carry is not a 2A right in the following panel discussion moderated by the author of the vacated three-judge panel decision in Peruta:

    "ROUNDTABLE - Areas of Constitutional Doctrine Transformed" as
    supplemental authority under FRAP Rule 28(j).
    This panel was held on November 19, 2016, during the 2016 National
    Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC.
    --Moderator: Hon. Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
    -- Second Amendment Panelist Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor
    of Law, UCLA School of Law
    https://youtu.be/MDlwbXLpOCI?t=32m34s 32:34 to 38:05 – Last visited May 21,
    2017.
    https://youtu.be/MDlwbXLpOCI?t=1h19m49s 1:19:49 to 1:22:35 – Last visited
    May 21, 2017.

    In this panel discussion, Professor Volokh emphatically states that "The one
    thing which is clear in Heller is that there is no right to concealed carry under the
    Second Amendment..." https://youtu.be/MDlwbXLpOCI?t=1h21m4s – Last visited
    May 21, 2017.

  • Soronel Haetir||

    Correct, but CA also greatly infringes on open carry.

  • California Right To Carry||

    Soronel Haetir - When did that happen?

  • wnoise||

    In 1967, when The Mulford Act was signed by then Governor Ronald Reagan.

  • California Right To Carry||

  • ||

    Just after the court upheld the law banning concealed carry, the legislature banned open carry. Part of the justification by the court that concealed carry was not protected was that open carry, such as it was, was allowed.

  • California Right To Carry||

    DavidWH - Fascinating. And of course the NRA must be in court seeking to overturn California's Open Carry bans? After all, it was the NRA which helped write the original 1967 California Loaded Open Carry ban.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    http://blog.californiarighttoc.....ge_id=8178

  • BillyG||

    The dissent pointed out that the plaintiffs could still retain their magazines by moving them out of state, so there was no physical taking.

    I really want to know what this judge was thinking. Well, marijuana is legal in CA now so.... Seriously, the judge might as well rule no taking cause you could take X out of country.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The judge was thinking, "It's the 'right' to own guns, how can I justify violating it?"

  • perlchpr||

    "A right to own 'guns' doesn't say anything about 'magazines', amirite?"

  • Longtobefree||

    Probably triggers as well. Just outlaw triggers, and there is on gun violence at all.
    Needs an exception for Willie's guitar, though.

  • FlameCCT||

    Geez, outlawing triggers would also slow down the construction industry too! ;-)

  • The original jack burton||

    It would also make the social justice crybabies in college so much safer

  • DjDiverDan||

    Outlaw triggers??? What have you got against Roy Rogers' horse?

  • ||

    I'm sure the dissenting judge would have required a very exacting level of scrutiny if reviewing a law that implicated the "right" of a woman to shove a metal pick into her baby's brain or the "right" of a man to put his genitals into another man's anus.

  • regexp||

    We can always count on you to bring the crazy to these threads. Keep up good work.

  • ||

    Is my post wrong? If anything is crazy, it's "jurisprudence" that protects unenumerated "rights" to abortion and buttsex before it protects guns.

  • Don't look at me.||

    It's always about the buttsex here.

  • tommyboy||

    Please explain how it's crazy to ask why a enumerated right is subject to increased restrictions while rights found 200 years after the constitution was written are so sacred and untouchable.

  • Egypt Steve||

    10th Amendment, jack. I thought libertarians loved it.

  • jph12||

    First, wrong amendment.

    Second, that doesn't answer the question at all.

  • Jerry B.||

    So there IS actually a point at which the 9th Circuit will no longer support California's violation of Constitutional rights.

  • Longtobefree||

    Not yet.
    All they did was allow the district court to hear the case and make a ruling the full Circuit court can overturn.

  • Lee Moore||

    I'm interested in this sitting by designation thing. The late great (or not so great, according to taste) Stephen Reinhardt, when asked whythe 9th kept on churning out judgements that were bound to be overturned on appeal to SCOTUS allegedly said "They can't catch them all."

    So doing the math : the 9th has 29 seats, and we'll say the vacancies balance out the seniors. So that means they can run 9 panels of 3, while SCOTUS is hearing one case. So even if SCOTUS only bothered with the 9th, they're outgunned 9-1. But if the Chief Justice of the Circuit Court can draft in "by designation" judges (presumably selecting those whose opinions are congenial) he can produce almost any multiple. The 9th could be running at 40-1. Or are "by designations" subject to a numerical limit ?

    It also seems a good trick if you're the Big Endian Chief Justice of a Court that has a majority of Little Endians. Just draft in some more Big Endians by designation and hey presto, the panels will be going your way.

    Are by designation folk allowed to sit en banc or just in panels ?

  • QuantumBoxCat||

    Well I'm confused.

    Kopel states: "For the majority, this seemed to be an easy case. The district judge had correctly found that prohibiting magazines over 10 rounds implicates the Second Amendment right, as other courts have done. (Indeed, as nearly every court to consider the issue has done.)"

    He then states: "But Ninth Circuit en banc can be very hostile to the Second Amendment, as Justices Thomas and Gorsuch observed in dissenting from denial of certiorari in a Ninth Circuit en banc case nullifying the right to bear arms. So a speedy en banc reversal of today's decision is not out of the question."

    How are these two claims compatible? If the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, "nullif[ied] the right to bear arms" then how was the district judge "correct[]" in stating that the law in question "implicate[d] the Second Amendment right?" If the right was "nullified" by the en banc court, then there is no "right" to be implicated. But if the right was in fact implicated, then the en banc court did not in fact "nullify" the right.

    Something in this post is not what it claims to be...

  • jph12||

    Take another look at the Second Amendment and see if anything is left when the right to bear arms is nullified. Hint: there is.

  • Harvey Mosley||

    This was a 3 judge panel. Not the Ninth sitting en banc.

  • Harvey Mosley||

    Sorry. Mis-read your comment. Please ignore my reply above.

  • Gene Ralno||

    Most of us want this issue to receive a full Supreme Court ruling. Most justices have read the 2nd Amendment and know it doesn't say the right to keep and bear arms "commonly in use" shall not be infringed.

  • Krayt||

    ===Like the Second Circuit in another magazine ban case, Judge Wallace seemed to favor a very weak standard of intermediate scrutiny review for Second Amendment cases: as long as the government could provide some evidence, that was sufficient--notwithstanding the other side's evidence showed that the government evidence is flawed or unpersuasive.===

    This isn't very weak intermediate scrutiny. This is rational basis, just done by the non-judicial branches.

  • KevinP||

    Perhaps some of us could get together and mail Judge John Clifford Wallace a "All Gun Control OK" rubber stamp?

  • Architect JS||

    Judge Wallace is 90 years old. How did he find the time to write the dissent? You know, between naps and such.

  • ranrod||

    Depending on Federal Judges to Protect Your Gun Rights Is a Bad Plan.
    This is a really bad strategy.
    At its core, the Second Amendment exists as a limit on federal authority. When you sue in federal court, you do so in the hope that the federal government will limit itself.
    Remember, federal courts operate as part of the federal government, and federal judges are nothing more than politically connected lawyers drawing federal paychecks. When we keep these facts in mind, it becomes pretty obvious we shouldn't count on federal courts to limit federal power, and uphold or preserve the Second Amendment.
    James Madison gave us the blueprint. When the federal government commits unwarrantable acts, the Father of the Constitution didn't say "file a lawsuit in federal court." Madison advised a refusal to cooperate with officers of the union. Don't depend on politically connected lawyers to protect your right to keep and bear arms.
    http://blog.tenthamendmentcent.....-bad-plan/

  • ||

    Great

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online