Court upholds California ban on major gun magazines – .

Court upholds California ban on major gun magazines – .

A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday to uphold the California ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines in a ruling that should lead to court approval of the state’s ban on assault weapons.
In a bench ruling, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that state law limiting the size of magazines – ammunition supply devices for firearms – does not significantly interfere with the right to self-defense. The court noted that there was no evidence that a person was unable to defend a home due to the lack of a high-capacity magazine.

Over the past 50 years, the court said, large capacity magazines have been used in about three-quarters of mass shootings that have left 10 or more dead, and in 100 percent of killings with 20 or more dead.

“The ban on legal possession of high-capacity magazines reasonably supports California’s efforts to reduce the devastating damage caused by mass shootings,” Clinton-appointed judge Susan P. Graber wrote for the court.

Two other gun control cases have been stayed pending a decision in the magazine’s case. Tuesday’s ruling says California’s ban on assault weapons, which a lower court had overturned, is also likely to be declared constitutional.

California’s ban on owning large capacity magazines affects those that can hold more than 10 rounds. California voters approved the ban in 2016, but a district judge and a panel of three divided judges from the 9th Circuit overturned it. Tuesday’s decision reinstates the ban.

“Large capacity magazines allow a shooter to fire more bullets with a single firearm without interruption,” Graber wrote, “and a murderer’s pause to reload or switch weapons allows potential victims and law enforcement officers to flee or confront the attacker. “

The court noted that Washington, DC, and eight other states also placed restrictions on high-capacity magazines and that six other federal appeals courts upheld the laws.

“We conclude that California’s ban is a reasonable, even imperfect, adjustment for its compelling goal of reducing the number of deaths and injuries caused by mass shootings,” Graber wrote.

US District Judge Roger T. Benitez has overturned both the magazine ban and the ban on assault weapons. In the assault weapons case, Benitez compared an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle to a Swiss army knife and called it “good for both home and battle”.

Benitez, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, said the ban on assault weapons unconstitutionally violates the rights of gun owners in California and “has had no effect” on reducing mass shootings.

Four people nominated by Republicans of the 9th Circuit, including three placed on the ground by President Trump, have expressed their dissent.

Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, joined by two other judges, said the banned magazines were “the common property of millions of law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”

“These magazines are neither dangerous nor unusual, nor are they subject to long-standing regulatory measures,” wrote Butamay, a person appointed by Trump.

Judge Lawrence VanDyke, another person named by Trump, wrote separately in a dissent accusing his colleagues of bias against guns.

“The majority of our court is suspicious of gun owners and thinks the Second Amendment is a vestigial body of their living constitution,” VanDyke wrote.

VanDyke’s dissent, which no other judge signed off, was unusual. Instead of focusing on the law, Van Dyke questioned the motivations of a majority of his colleagues.

VanDyke said mass shootings were, indeed, “horrific” but also statistically rare. Large-scale magazines may be needed for self-defense when someone is attacked by a group of attackers, he said. The “majority opinions guide the jurisprudence of this circuit, ignoring the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment and fully exploiting the discretion inherent in Supreme Court cases,” Van Dyke wrote.

Obama-appointed judge Andrew D. Hurwitz opposed it.

VanDyke’s dissent was as inappropriate and factually unfounded as “a majority statement that today’s dissenters are prepared to rewrite the Constitution because of their personal enthusiasm for guns,” he said. writing.

As for VanDyke’s claim that mass shootings were relatively rare, Hurwitz retaliated: “The people of California should not be stopped from trying to prevent mass killings just because they don’t happen. fairly consistently in the eyes of an unelected Article III judge.

Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Assn., Said his group will ask the 9th Circuit to stay the decision while the association seeks a review in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ban on large-scale magazine possession has been suspended pending the outcome of the case and is expected to continue to be blocked until the Supreme Court decides to intervene, he said. .


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here