Summary
The Ninth Circuit held that California Penal Code § 32310, which bans possession of large-capacity magazines (LCMs) holding more than ten rounds, violates the Second Amendment. Applying the two-step *Chovan* test, the court found LCMs are protected arms commonly owned for lawful purposes, not unusual, and not subject to longstanding prohibitions; strict scrutiny applied because the law substantially burdens the core right of self-defense in the home by banning half of all magazines. The law failed strict scrutiny for lack of narrow tailoring and also failed intermediate scrutiny because the blanket ban was not substantially related to the compelling interest in reducing gun violence. The dissent argued intermediate scrutiny should apply and that the law satisfies it, consistent with other circuits.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether California Penal Code § 32310's ban on possession of large-capacity magazines violates the Second Amendment.
- What level of constitutional scrutiny applies to the ban.
- Whether the ban can survive strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny.
Holdings
- Yes. Firearm magazines are protected arms under the Second Amendment because they are necessary to render firearms operable. LCMs are not 'unusual' arms; they are commonly owned and typically used for lawful purposes. The prohibition is not a longstanding regulation, and there is no persuasive historical evidence that LCM possession falls outside the Second Amendment's scope.
- Strict scrutiny applies because the law strikes at the core Second Amendment right of self-defense and substantially burdens that right. The ban is near-categorical, applies to commonly used self-defense weapons, and has no meaningful exceptions for law-abiding citizens.
- No. The law is not narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling state interests of preventing gun violence. The blanket ban on possession everywhere and for nearly everyone is not the least restrictive means.
Key quotations
“California’s near-categorical ban of LCMs strikes at the core of the Second Amendment — the right to armed self-defense.” (9)
“We affirm the district court’s summary judgment, and hold that California Penal Code section 32310’s ban on LCMs runs afoul of the Second Amendment.” (10)
“Section 32310 strikes at the core right of law-abiding citizens to defend hearth and home, and the burden imposed on the core right is substantial.” (31)
Factual background
California Penal Code § 32310, originally enacted in 2000, prohibited manufacture, importation, and sale of large-capacity magazines (LCMs) holding more than ten rounds. In 2016, the law was amended to prohibit possession of LCMs, with limited exceptions for law enforcement, etc. The plaintiffs, who lawfully acquired LCMs, challenged the law. The record showed that LCMs are commonly owned, with approximately 115 million in circulation, and are standard equipment in many popular handguns used for self-defense, such as Glock and Beretta models. The law bans possession of half of all magazines in America, with no meaningful exceptions for law-abiding citizens.
Procedural history
The district court issued a preliminary injunction in 2017, then granted summary judgment for plaintiffs. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction in an unpublished opinion (Duncan v. Becerra, 742 F. App'x 218). The district court then granted summary judgment, and the state appealed.