Skip to content
9th Circuit maintains California ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines

This position sparked dissent from a trio of judges appointed by former President Donald Trump: Lawrence VanDyke, Ryan Nelson and Patrick Bumatay. They underscored the national issues by claiming that “these magazines legally belong to millions of people across the country” and warning that California law applying to all of America “would require the confiscation of half of all magazines. existing firearms in this country ”.

Response from Newsom: “Weapons of war have no place in our streets”, Newsom tweeted. “This is a huge victory for the health and safety of all Californians.”

The background: A 2016 law and a ballot initiative championed by Newsom, then California’s then lieutenant governor, banned high-capacity magazines in an attempt to reduce gun violence. Voters overwhelmingly supported the initiative, overtaking it by a margin of nearly 30 points.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez struck down those laws in a pair of rulings. It gained notoriety in a later ruling overturning the California assault weapons ban that equated the AR-15s with a “Swiss Army knife”. and claimed coronavirus vaccines were deadlier than mass shootings, sparking outrage. Newsom condemned Benitez as a “wholly owned subsidiary of the gun lobby and the National Rifle Association”.

California’s appeal gained national dimension as many prosecutors from other Blue states signed in favor, while those from Texas and other Red states backed the plaintiffs.

And after: The plaintiffs plan to appeal the ruling, lawyer CD Michel said in an email, citing dissenting opinions suggesting that a challenge would be “appropriate”. That could take the case to the United States Supreme Court, where the Conservative justices hold a 6-3 majority.



Not all news on the site expresses the point of view of the site, but we transmit this news automatically and translate it through programmatic technology on the site and not from a human editor.