California’s ammo magazine ban shows nation’s stark divide
Dozens of states take sides in court battle over right to restrict high-capacity devices.
Late last month, a coalition of 19 U.S. states and the District of Columbia came together to support California’s ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines.
In a brief filed in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where a challenge to California’s law is being considered, the coalition argued that California’s ban is “wholly consistent” with the 2nd Amendment and should be upheld as lawful.
Late Thursday, 25 other states responded with their own brief arguing just the opposite. They said California’s ammunition ban was a threat to the 2nd Amendment and to individual gun owners’ right to self-defense, and should be overturned as unconstitutional.
The dueling legal briefs showcased in clear terms something most Americans already understand from years of robust gun debates and an endless barrage of mass shootings: This is a nation deeply divided on gun policy.
“This is a reflection of where the country is,” said Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor who focuses on 2nd Amendment law. “It really highlights a political divide.”
The briefs also showed how differently the attorneys general and other legal leaders in red and blue states are interpreting the sweeping new limits the U.S. Supreme Court placed on gun laws nationwide last year, Winkler said — with liberal leaders perceiving ample wiggle room for state gun restrictions to survive, and their conservative counterparts seeing far less.
The case involving California’s high-capacity magazine ban is hardly the only one where this divide is playing out. Gun laws are being challenged in courts all across the country following the Supreme Court’s decision last year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen, and states are constantly weighing which of those cases to weigh in on.
In Bruen, the high court rejected a long-standing pillar of 2nd Amendment law that held that governments may enforce certain firearms restrictions if they have a compelling government interest in doing so. Instead, the justices decided that most restrictions on firearms are legitimate only if they are deeply rooted in American history or analogous to some other historical rule.
The ruling prompted a mountain of legal challenges to gun laws across the country, including in California.
As a result, California’s bans on high-capacity magazines and assault-style weapons were both overturned as unconstitutional in recent months by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego.
The state has appealed both rulings, and the 9th Circuit appellate court has halted them from taking effect as it considers the appeals.
When a law is challenged in court, outside parties with a vested interest in the outcome of the decision sometimes file their own briefs in support of or in opposition to the law in question.
That is what happened with the two state coalitions in the case on California’s high-capacity magazine ban — because the appellate court’s decision could have implications for gun laws in other states, too.
The filing in support of California’s ban was joined by Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and Wisconsin.
Those states argued that they have the ability under the Constitution to impose restrictions on particularly dangerous weapons and accessories, while leaving citizens other options for selfdefense; that high-capacity ammunition magazines are not commonly used “arms” under the 2nd Amendment; and that California’s law is consistent with a long historical tradition in this country of regulating particularly dangerous weapons and accessories.
“We work every day to promote our residents’ health, welfare, and security, including by taking steps to curb the threats of mass shootings and other forms of gun violence that harm our residents and inhibit their exercise of constitutionally protected freedoms,” the states said, arguing that such efforts are within their rights under the Constitution.
Massachusetts Atty. Gen. Andrea Joy Campbell, one of the leaders of the coalition supporting California’s ban, said in a statement that such measures “save lives and protect the public from gun violence.”
The filing in opposition to California’s ammunition ban was joined by Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.
Those states argued that California’s ban threatened the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and that it clearly ran afoul of the Bruen decision, in part because such bans are not a part of the nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulations. They said such magazines are commonly possessed and used for self-defense and are clearly “arms” under the scope of the 2nd Amendment.
Montana Atty. Gen. Austin Knudsen, one of the leaders of that coalition, said in a statement that Judge Benitez had “properly concluded that California’s law unconstitutionally restricts the fundamental right to keep and bear common firearm magazines typically possessed for lawful purposes,” and that his decision overturning the law should be upheld by the appellate court.
When the 9th Circuit will rule in the case is unknown. Its decision could be appealed again to the Supreme Court.
UCLA’s Winkler said the California case is “a symbol of where we are in the gun debate right now” — namely of how “incredibly unsettled” gun law is following the Bruen rulling.
“Bruen has upended things, but it leaves many questions up for grabs — and the high-capacity magazine ban is one of them,” he said.
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office, when asked about the other states weighing in against California’s highcapacity magazine ban this week, referred back to his statement denouncing Benitez’s ruling in September that overturned the law.
“This is politics,” Newsom said at the time, “pure and simple.”