Banning so-called high-capacity magazines is an obvious infringement of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. However, many more liberal courts have failed to see it that way.
In fact, court challenges to such magazine limits have met a mixed bag of success and failure, with some courts handing down rulings that the magazines are “arms” protected under the Second Amendment and others saying they are just “accessories.”
In an attempt to get the matter settled once and for all, the National Rifle Association recently filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the court to hear the case Duncan v. Bonta, which challenges California’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
California has prohibited the manufacture, import, sale, and transfer of so-called “large-capacity magazines,” defined by the state as “any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” since 2000. Later, in 2016, the state outlawed possession of such magazines, and required any lawfully possessed magazine to be surrendered, permanently altered or destroyed.
Doug Hamlin, NRA executive vice president and CEO, said it’s critical that the Supreme Court hear the case since magazines holding more than 10 rounds are in widespread use throughout most of the country.
“Tens of millions of Americans lawfully own hundreds of millions of the magazines that California bans,” Hamlin said in a news item announcing the brief filing. “The Supreme Court should take this case to vindicate the rights of Californians and reaffirm that the Second Amendment prohibits the government from banning common arms.”
After nearly 10 years in court, this spring the 9th Circuit Court ruled that such magazines are simply “accessories,” not “arms.” The NRA’s brief asking SCOTUS to hear the case explains why that ruling was wrong.
“That decision cannot be reconciled with this Court’s precedents or the constitutional traditions they embody,” the brief states. “Indeed, despite professing surface-level adherence to Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi, the Ninth Circuit ultimately cast those decisions aside, pawning off interest-balancing as careful consideration of constitutional text and historical tradition.”
Ultimately, the NRA brief said the Supreme Court should take the case to settle the matter once and for all.
“To sit on the sideline in the face of a final judgment holding that states may ban ubiquitous feeding devices that come standard with ubiquitous firearms is to signal that the Second Amendment really is second class,” the brief concludes. “This Court should instead grant review, provide the guidance that lower courts profess to lack, and ensure that law-abiding citizens in defiant, outlier states are not forced to surrender either their constitutional rights or their property.”
John Commerford, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), said that after nearly a decade of litigation, this case is “more than ready” for the high court’s review.
“The people of California have endured long enough,” he added. “It’s time to restore their constitutional rights.”
Read the full article here
