California gun owners with large-capacity magazines can keep them despite ruling — for now

California gun owners holding on to large-capacity magazines can keep them, at least for now, despite a federal court ruling Tuesday upholding the state’s ban on them.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sustained California’s ban on high-capacity magazines, saying the state’s restrictions on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition is a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.

The California Rifle and Pistol Association issued a statement following the circuit decision, vowing to “act promptly to preserve the status quo” while it takes the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court.

”For now, it appears that gun owners who possess magazines over 10 rounds may continue to possess them while the parties work to exhaust their avenues for rehearing and appeal. CRPA will release additional information on the status for individual gun owners as it becomes available,” according to a statement from the group issued Tuesday.

It has been illegal to import or purchase large-capacity magazines since 2000. In 2016, California voters approved a ballot initiative banning possession of them as well.

However, U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez in 2019 ruled that both bans were an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment.

With the bans struck down, for one week in the spring of 2019, it was legal for Californians to import and purchase large-capacity magazines.

During this “Freedom Week,” Californians lawfully purchased hundreds of thousands, “if not millions,” of large-capacity firearm magazines, according to the California Rifle and Pistol Association.

The state appealed Benitez’s ruling, which temporarily restored the ban on large-capacity magazines within a week of his decision.

‘Minimal benefit for civilian, lawful purposes’

The 9th Circuit ruling noted that large-capacity magazines have been used in about three-quarters of gun massacres with 10 or more deaths and in 100% of gun massacres with 20 or more deaths in the last half century.

Furthermore, the judges wrote, more than twice as many people have been killed or injured in mass shootings that involved a large-capacity magazine as compared with mass shootings that involved a smaller-capacity magazine.

“California’s ban on large-capacity magazines imposes only a minimal burden on the exercise of the Second Amendment right. The law has no effect whatsoever on which firearms may be owned; as far as the challenged statute is concerned, anyone may own any firearm at all. Owners of firearms also may possess as many firearms, bullets, and magazines as they choose,” the court wrote in its opinion, spearheaded by Judge Susan P Graber.

The judges noted that people under fire by a mass shooter have a chance to hide or fight back when a gunman has to reload, contending a smaller magazine can save lives.

“In sum, large-capacity magazines provide significant benefit to soldiers and criminals who wish to kill many people rapidly. But the magazines provide at most a minimal benefit for civilian, lawful purposes,” the opinion reads.

Gun group plans Supreme Court appeal

The California Rifle & Pistol Association maintains that the magazine ban infringes on its members Second Amendment rights to own firearms.

“We will be appealing to the Supreme Court for a final determination because gun owners deserve to have someone fighting for them and their rights. The Second Amendment is a fundamental right, and it is time that courts stop treating that right like a second-class gift from government,” assocition President and General Counsel Chuck Michel said in a written statement.

Siham Zniber, with the Giffords Law Center — which supports gun control legislation — affirmed that possession remains legal until the time to appeal runs out.

“We applaud the Court for following the law and the consensus of numerous other courts, instead of adopting an extremist view of the Second Amendment that would support a constitutional right to 30-round, 40-round, or even 100-round magazines, and needlessly jeopardize the safety of Californians across the state,” said Giffords Law Center Litigation Director Hannah Shearer in a statement.

Lara Korte of The Sacramento Bee contributed to this report.

This story was originally published November 30, 2021 at 2:59 PM.