Written by Nicholas Vetrisek
Proposition 63, California’s ban on “high capacity” firearm magazines enacted in 2016, was struck down recently by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling.
Judge Kenneth Lee ruled that the proposition violated the Second Amendment because firearm magazines are protected under the Constitution. He also found that the “high capacity” magazines were commonly owned for lawful purposes. For California gun owners, this is a breath of fresh air from a state and legal system that routinely treats them with contempt.
Prop 63 was far more than just a ban on magazines with more than 10 rounds, it severely restricted and attacked the Second Amendment. Under the law, half of the 230 million magazines in the United States were illegal to own in California, including those that come standard issue with Glock and Beretta handguns, two of the most common firearms in America. In other words, you would need to find specially made magazines in order to legally use the handgun you purchased.
Judge Lee also wrote of the importance of Large Capacity Magazines (LCMs) in situations where law enforcement is unavailable. “Many Californians may find solace in the security of a handgun equipped with an LCM: those who live in rural areas where the local sheriff may be miles away, law-abiding citizens trapped in high-crime areas, communities that distrust or depend less on law enforcement, and many more who rely on their firearms to protect themselves and their families,” Lee wrote. “California’s almost blanket ban on LCMs goes too far in substantially burdening the people’s right to self-defense.”
There are the strictly legal arguments used by Lee, but there’s also the symbolic nature of this law and what the Second Amendment states. The Second Amendment clearly states, “The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Though the Second Amendment is often ignored in most gun rights cases in favor of obscure legislation and legal decisions, the Constitution still holds precedence. This ruling is a step in the right direction and there will hopefully be many more decisions like this to come.
