The Ninth Circuit issues a blockbuster Second Amendment decision

The Ninth Circuit, which is the most far-left and most frequently overruled federal appellate court in America, finally produced a decision that is in line with the Constitution. A three-judge panel held that California’s ban on high-capacity magazines violated citizens’ rights under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms.

Presidents Trump and George W. Bush appointed the two judges who ruled against the ban and in favor of the Constitution. The dissenting judge, a district court judge sitting by assignment, is a Clinton appointee.

Writing at RedState, Bonchie summarizes what was at issue in the case, not just for California, but for many citizens in Democrat-run states that are trying to use backdoor methods to undo the Second Amendment:

If you weren’t aware, many states limit magazine capacity, with the most common stipulation being nothing over ten rounds. This has been a round about way to try to enforce some level of “gun control” in places like California. It’s also an incredibly arbitrary measure. What make [sic] it constitutional to ban eleven rounds but not nine?

The Court’s lucid summary in Duncan v. Becerra is the best way to understand the decision:

California's near-categorical ban of LCMs [so-called "large-capacity magazines," which is to say magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds] strikes at the core of the Second Amendment—the right to armed self-defense. Armed self-defense is a fundamental right rooted in tradition and the text of the Second Amendment. Indeed, from pre-colonial times to today's post-modern era, the right to defend hearth and home has remained paramount.

California's law imposes a substantial burden on this right to self-defense. The ban makes it criminal for Californians to own magazines that come standard in Glocks, Berettas, and other handguns that are staples of self-defense. Its scope is so sweeping that half of all magazines in America are now unlawful to own in California. Even law-abiding citizens, regardless of their training and track record, must alter or turn over to the state any LCMs that they may have legally owned for years—or face up to a year in jail.

The state of California has latitude in enacting laws to curb the scourge of gun violence, and has done so by imposing waiting periods and many other limitations. But the Second Amendment limits the state's ability to second-guess a citizen's choice of arms if it imposes a substantial burden on her right to self-defense.

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. California's almost-blanket ban on LCMs goes too far in substantially burdening the people's right to self-defense. We affirm the district court's summary judgment, and hold that California Penal Code section 32310's ban on LCMs runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

The decision reflects the intersection of law and reality. That is, the judges in the majority understand the practical implications of larger magazine capacities. They know -- as Americans are learning from police body cams -- that a single bullet, or even two or three bullets, might not stop an attacker. (See, here and here, for example.) The person shooting may miss, or the attacker may be so hopped up on drugs or be so mentally ill that it takes a barrage of bullets to stop him.

Aside from forcing Justice Roberts to take up the case, the decision makes stark the distinction between Trump continuing in the White House versus Biden and Harris taking over. Harris has made it clear that she intends to force people to give up their weapons. Here, again, is Bonchie’s take:

The other thing this ruling does is draw a line in the sand between some of the radical measures Kamala Harris and Joe Biden, if elected, want to take vs. what is legally allowed. If having more than ten rounds is constitutional, there’s simply no way a forced gun buy back is going to survive a legal challenge, nor is it likely any “assault weapons ban” would stand. An AR-15 is simply a rifle (and not even an overly powerful one) at the end of the day. 

The one certain takeaway is that if people believe in their Second Amendment rights – and even before American’s recent gun-buying binge, roughly 30% of adult Americans did believe -- the only acceptable candidate for President is Donald Trump. Not only will he refrain from attacking the Second Amendment through backdoor executive orders, but his judicial appointments will also (most likely) uphold the Constitution.

Image: 40 SIG Sauer P226, magazine and Winchester Ranger 165 grain centerfire cartridges, by BankingBum; CC BY-SAW 3.0.

The Ninth Circuit, which is the most far-left and most frequently overruled federal appellate court in America, finally produced a decision that is in line with the Constitution. A three-judge panel held that California’s ban on high-capacity magazines violated citizens’ rights under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms.

Presidents Trump and George W. Bush appointed the two judges who ruled against the ban and in favor of the Constitution. The dissenting judge, a district court judge sitting by assignment, is a Clinton appointee.

Writing at RedState, Bonchie summarizes what was at issue in the case, not just for California, but for many citizens in Democrat-run states that are trying to use backdoor methods to undo the Second Amendment:

If you weren’t aware, many states limit magazine capacity, with the most common stipulation being nothing over ten rounds. This has been a round about way to try to enforce some level of “gun control” in places like California. It’s also an incredibly arbitrary measure. What make [sic] it constitutional to ban eleven rounds but not nine?

The Court’s lucid summary in Duncan v. Becerra is the best way to understand the decision:

California's near-categorical ban of LCMs [so-called "large-capacity magazines," which is to say magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds] strikes at the core of the Second Amendment—the right to armed self-defense. Armed self-defense is a fundamental right rooted in tradition and the text of the Second Amendment. Indeed, from pre-colonial times to today's post-modern era, the right to defend hearth and home has remained paramount.

California's law imposes a substantial burden on this right to self-defense. The ban makes it criminal for Californians to own magazines that come standard in Glocks, Berettas, and other handguns that are staples of self-defense. Its scope is so sweeping that half of all magazines in America are now unlawful to own in California. Even law-abiding citizens, regardless of their training and track record, must alter or turn over to the state any LCMs that they may have legally owned for years—or face up to a year in jail.

The state of California has latitude in enacting laws to curb the scourge of gun violence, and has done so by imposing waiting periods and many other limitations. But the Second Amendment limits the state's ability to second-guess a citizen's choice of arms if it imposes a substantial burden on her right to self-defense.

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. California's almost-blanket ban on LCMs goes too far in substantially burdening the people's right to self-defense. We affirm the district court's summary judgment, and hold that California Penal Code section 32310's ban on LCMs runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

The decision reflects the intersection of law and reality. That is, the judges in the majority understand the practical implications of larger magazine capacities. They know -- as Americans are learning from police body cams -- that a single bullet, or even two or three bullets, might not stop an attacker. (See, here and here, for example.) The person shooting may miss, or the attacker may be so hopped up on drugs or be so mentally ill that it takes a barrage of bullets to stop him.

Aside from forcing Justice Roberts to take up the case, the decision makes stark the distinction between Trump continuing in the White House versus Biden and Harris taking over. Harris has made it clear that she intends to force people to give up their weapons. Here, again, is Bonchie’s take:

The other thing this ruling does is draw a line in the sand between some of the radical measures Kamala Harris and Joe Biden, if elected, want to take vs. what is legally allowed. If having more than ten rounds is constitutional, there’s simply no way a forced gun buy back is going to survive a legal challenge, nor is it likely any “assault weapons ban” would stand. An AR-15 is simply a rifle (and not even an overly powerful one) at the end of the day. 

The one certain takeaway is that if people believe in their Second Amendment rights – and even before American’s recent gun-buying binge, roughly 30% of adult Americans did believe -- the only acceptable candidate for President is Donald Trump. Not only will he refrain from attacking the Second Amendment through backdoor executive orders, but his judicial appointments will also (most likely) uphold the Constitution.

Image: 40 SIG Sauer P226, magazine and Winchester Ranger 165 grain centerfire cartridges, by BankingBum; CC BY-SAW 3.0.