{"id":3728,"date":"2025-03-24T05:37:49","date_gmt":"2025-03-24T12:37:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/?p=3728"},"modified":"2025-03-24T05:46:27","modified_gmt":"2025-03-24T12:46:27","slug":"large-capacity-magazines-on-trial-will-the-9th-circuits-ban-survive-the-supreme-courts-second-amendment-test","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/2025\/03\/24\/large-capacity-magazines-on-trial-will-the-9th-circuits-ban-survive-the-supreme-courts-second-amendment-test\/","title":{"rendered":"Large Capacity Magazines on Trial: Will the 9th Circuit\u2019s Ban Survive the Supreme Court\u2019s Second Amendment Test?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\r\n
\r\n \"\"<\/a>The Large Capacity Magazine (LCM)<\/strong> \u2013\u2013 often overlooked but a vital component \u2013\u2013 is the beating heart of a firearm\u2019s effectiveness, transforming it from a single-shot tool into a true “repeating” weapon. This component becomes even more critical in a self-defense scenario where the stakes are life and death. Whether built into the firearm or designed for quick detachment and reloading, the LCM holds an ample ammunition supply that ensures a defender is never left vulnerable after a single shot.<\/strong> When faced with multiple attackers \u2013\u2013 an all-too-real possibility in today\u2019s world \u2013\u2013 the ability to fire follow-up shots without fumbling for loose rounds can mean the difference between survival and tragedy. A firearm without a reliable LCM is a half-measure, but with it, one can respond swiftly, decisively, and effectively to any threat.<\/em><\/span>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\n

In a contentious 7-4 en banc decision on March 20, 2025, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California\u2019s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds in Duncan v. Bonta, reigniting a fierce debate over Second Amendment rights in the wake of the Supreme Court\u2019s 2022 Bruen ruling. The majority argued that large-capacity magazines fall outside constitutional protection. At the same time, Judge Lawrence VanDyke\u2019s scathing dissent\u2014complete with an 18-minute YouTube video of him disassembling firearms\u2014accused the court of ignoring legal precedent and basic firearm mechanics. As this case edges closer to a potential Supreme Court showdown, we\u2019ll dissect the 9th Circuit\u2019s reasoning, evaluate VanDyke\u2019s dramatic rebuttal, and analyze whether California\u2019s ban can withstand the high court\u2019s scrutiny under the Bruen framework, considering the current judicial landscape<\/p>\n

Case Background: Duncan v. Bonta<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The case at hand, Duncan v. Bonta, challenges California\u2019s ban on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) under the Second Amendment. California\u2019s law, enacted through Proposition 63 in 2016, prohibits possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, with limited exceptions. The 9th Circuit, in a 7-4 en banc decision on March 20, 2025, upheld the ban, reversing a lower court ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who had twice struck down the law as unconstitutional. This case has a long history: the 9th Circuit previously upheld the ban, but the Supreme Court vacated that decision in 2022 following its landmark New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling, remanding the case for reconsideration under the new Bruen standard.<\/p>\n

The 9th Circuit\u2019s Reasoning<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The 9th Circuit majority applied the Bruen framework, which requires courts to assess whether a firearm regulation is consistent with the nation\u2019s \u201chistorical tradition of firearm regulation.\u201d The court ruled that California\u2019s LCM ban passes muster, arguing that large-capacity magazines are not covered by the Second Amendment because they are not \u201cbearable arms\u201d in the traditional sense, but rather accessories that can be regulated. As a secondary argument, the majority held that even if LCMs were protected, the ban aligns with historical traditions of regulating \u201cespecially dangerous\u201d weapons and their components to protect public safety, citing early American laws restricting certain arms like Bowie knives. The court pointed to modern data showing LCMs\u2019 frequent use in mass shootings, framing the ban as a reasonable public safety measure.<\/p>\n

Judge VanDyke\u2019s Dissent: A Dramatic Rebuttal<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a Trump appointee, issued a scathing dissent, accompanied by an 18-minute YouTube video where he disassembled firearms to demonstrate what he called the majority\u2019s \u201cbasic misunderstanding of how firearms work\u201d. VanDyke argued that magazines are integral to the function of firearms, not mere accessories, and thus fall under Second Amendment protection as part of the right to \u201ckeep and bear arms.\u201d He criticized the majority for ignoring the Bruen standard, asserting that there is no historical tradition of banning magazine capacities\u2014early laws targeted specific weapons, not their ammunition-feeding mechanisms. VanDyke\u2019s video dissent, while unconventional and deemed \u201cwildly improper\u201d by Judge Marsha Berzon, aimed to educate on the technical reality of firearms, emphasizing that LCMs are in \u201ccommon use\u201d for self-defense, a key factor under Bruen and the earlier Heller decision (2008), which protects arms in common use for lawful purposes.<\/p>\n

Will the Decision Hold Up Under Supreme Court Scrutiny?<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

To assess whether the 9th Circuit\u2019s decision will withstand Supreme Court scrutiny, we must consider the Bruen framework and the Court\u2019s current composition. Bruen (2022) established a two-step test: first, does the Second Amendment\u2019s plain text cover the regulated conduct (i.e., are LCMs part of the right to bear arms)? If yes, the government must prove the regulation is consistent with historical tradition. Let\u2019s break this down:<\/p>\n

Second Amendment Coverage:<\/strong><\/span> The 9th Circuit\u2019s claim that LCMs are not \u201cbearable arms\u201d<\/strong><\/span> is shaky. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court defined \u201carms\u201d<\/strong><\/span> broadly, including weapons in common use for lawful purposes, and in Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), it extended this to components like stun guns. VanDyke\u2019s dissent aligns with this precedent, arguing that magazines are essential to a firearm\u2019s operation\u2014without them, most modern guns are inoperable. Data cited in the Legal Insurrection post notes that millions of LCMs are in circulation, with many standard-issue pistols (e.g., Glock 17, 17 rounds) exceeding California\u2019s 10-round limit, suggesting they are indeed in \u201ccommon use\u201d for self-defense, a point the Supreme Court has historically protected.<\/p>\n

Appeals Court Judge Disassembles Gun In Video Dissent From Anti-2A 9th Cir. Decision<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Like most \u201cblue\u201d<\/strong><\/span> states, California has enacted a state statute banning magazines for semi-automatic handguns that carry more than ten rounds. See our prior coverage of Illinois\u2019 own so-called \u201chigh-capacity\u201d handgun magazine ban: Illinois Supreme Court Upholds Ban on \u2018Assault Weapons\u2019 and \u2018Large Capacity Magazines\u2019<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Those statutes, as we have covered, have come under legal fire by pro-Second Amendment groups eager to maximize the self-defense options for law-abiding citizens who wish protect their families.<\/p>\n

In California\u2019s case, the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. sued the State of California in May 2017 in the federal Southern District of California. After numerous twists and turns, including a trip up to and back from the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has now upheld California\u2019s \u201clarge-capacity\u201d<\/strong><\/span> handgun magazine ban, making it illegal in the states and territories of the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, to own a handgun magazine holding more than ten rounds.<\/p>\n

But the most amazing part of the opinion, and an absolute must watch (see in the article<\/strong><\/a>), is an 18-minute YouTube video by dissenter Lawrence VanDyke, who eviscerates the majority\u2019s argument that magazines holding more than ten rounds can be constitutionally banned because such magazines are \u201caccessories,\u201d and not an essential part of a handgun.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Historical Tradition:<\/strong><\/span> The 9th Circuit\u2019s reliance on historical laws banning \u201cdangerous\u201d<\/strong><\/span> weapons like Bowie knives is a stretch. Bruen requires a direct analog to the modern regulation, and no historical laws specifically targeted magazine capacities\u2014firearms in the 18th and 19th centuries, like muskets, didn\u2019t use detachable magazines, making the comparison inapt. The majority\u2019s focus on modern public safety concerns (e.g., mass shootings) violates Bruen\u2019s mandate to prioritize historical tradition over contemporary policy arguments, a misstep the Supreme Court is likely to scrutinize. Note that the 9th Circuit has a history of being an outlier on Second Amendment issues, often restricting rights where other circuits have expanded them, increasing the likelihood of reversal.<\/p>\n

Supreme Court Composition:<\/strong> <\/span>The current Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority as of March 2025, has shown a strong commitment to expanding Second Amendment protections. Justices like Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, who authored Bruen, have consistently ruled against restrictive gun laws lacking historical grounding. The Court\u2019s decision to vacate the 9th Circuit\u2019s earlier ruling in this case post-Bruen signals skepticism of California\u2019s ban. Moreover, the Court\u2019s recent trend\u2014seen in cases like United States v. Rahimi (2024), which still upheld Second Amendment rights while allowing some restrictions\u2014suggests it will demand a rigorous historical analysis, which the 9th Circuit\u2019s decision lacks.<\/p>\n

Conclusion: Likely Reversal by the Supreme Court<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The 9th Circuit\u2019s decision to uphold California\u2019s LCM ban is unlikely to survive Supreme Court scrutiny if appealed. The majority\u2019s argument that LCMs are not protected by the Second Amendment contradicts Heller and Caetano, as magazines are integral to firearms in common use for self-defense. Furthermore, the court\u2019s historical analysis fails the Bruen test\u2014there\u2019s no direct historical tradition of banning magazine capacities, and the majority\u2019s reliance on modern safety concerns oversteps Bruen\u2019s framework. Judge VanDyke\u2019s dissent, while unconventional, aligns more closely with Supreme Court precedent, particularly on the \u201ccommon use\u201d<\/strong><\/span> standard. Given the Court\u2019s conservative majority and its recent Second Amendment rulings, California\u2019s ban faces a steep uphill battle. If Duncan v. Bonta reaches the Supreme Court, I predict a reversal, likely by a 6-3 vote, sending a clear message that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess standard-capacity magazines for lawful purposes.<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In a contentious 7-4 en banc decision on March 20, 2025, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California\u2019s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds in Duncan v. Bonta, reigniting a fierce debate over Second Amendment rights in the wake of the Supreme Court\u2019s 2022 Bruen ruling. The majority argued that large-capacity magazines…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[80],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3728","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-2nd-amendment"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3728","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3728"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3728\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3728"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3728"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3728"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}