California appeals court upholds ban on higher-capacity magazines, spurring unusual video dissent - 21 March 2025

[potguts]

So, what would you actually do to address the issues at the core? Not look at but, actually do?

If you’re looking for real, pragmatic efforts that can be immediately implemented and judged for their effectiveness against the carnage you speak of, and that don’t have complex constitutional implications, how about protecting schools with the same arms we use to protect the politicians.

I have three young kids in a private Christian school. For several years there was general debate about security measures. I myself was undecided.

Within a week of the 2023 Nashville school shooting, we had multiple full time armed guards, secure entrances, bullet proof glass, and real emergency response plans. The guards have become cherished members of the community. The kids love them. I greet them with a smile everyday, and I tell them how grateful I am that they are there.

Nothing is guaranteed, that is the price of freedom. But I know my kids are not an easy target for carnage. And I know these guards aren’t carrying 10 round mags. Just like the guards who protect the 9th circuit judges.

Apologies to the mods if this is getting way off-topic!

 

[DB>)>]

So, what would you actually do to address the issues at the core? Not look at but, actually do?

#1 end the revolving door "justice" system, stop coddling criminals, make stupidity painful.
#2 Stamp out the gang and drug culture (where a large percentage of "gun deaths" occur) in the "top 5-10" big cities that account for the VAST majority of gun deaths. This is consistent with #1.
#3 Instead of teaching FEAR, have every kid take a gun safety class so they understand the RESPONSIBILITY of having a gun, vs. the "hollywood gun culture". Knowledge is power.
#4 (since nearly 2/3 of gun deaths are SUICIDE) Teach values of LIFE, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (responsibility once again). Stop blaming inanimate objects for the problems of you or others, and help people build better healthier coping mechanisms instead of violence or drugs, and to make better choices.

The above are not "gun control", but rather CULTURAL shifts away from toxicity. We'd still probably want some sort of licensing of gun owners, but statistically legal CCW holders and I'd suspect gun owners in general are among the least likely to be criminals...

 

[Batman]

Want to help? Here's some thoughts....

1. Change HIPAA laws so that psychologists can add mental patients who express the wish to harm others to the prohibited persons list, rather than being barred from doing so.
2. How about if a teenager is undergoing psychiatric treatment, he's put on the don't-sell-guns-to-this-person-list until it's determined that he's not a danger to himself or others? Especially if he's being prescribed psychotropic drugs. If they’re on Ritalin or other mood altering drugs, they can’t buy a gun until their off the meds (and by that I mean taken off by a doctor) for at least 5 years and make sure there's a process (and when I say process, that’s short for Due Process) to get rights restored.
3. At the same time, if your little angel has a hit list or a rape list, they don’t get to buy guns either!
4. Cross-link and reference databases for criminal and mental holds to actually prevent people who shouldn’t have guns get guns (at least legally), and actually prosecute those felons who try to buy a gun. In 2017, 112,000 people who weren't allowed to own firearms actually tried to buy a gun. Of those, guess how many were actually prosecuted? Just 12. The numbers are roughly the same going back over previous administrations, so please do blame all of them. That's insanity at its finest! https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-12-prosecuted-editorials-debates/1288699002/
5. Hold people accountable who don’t submit needed information to the DOJ to prevent mentally ill people from owning firearms (which, by the way, mentally ill people have been barred from firearm ownership since 1968). Remember that church shooting in Texas? Had the Air Force actually done their job, Devin Kelley’s domestic violence conviction would’ve shown up on the DOJ database and he wouldn’t have legally gotten the gun to shoot 26 people. To my knowledge, no one in the Air Force has been prosecuted.
6. Start a campaign, much like MADD, where people are more willing to come forward to call people out for social media posts that call for gun violence.
7. Hold pharmaceutical companies liable for the psychotropic drugs that are prescribed to teens going through puberty that make them act out in ways we haven’t seen before.
8. Hold Facebook, Instagram, and other social media platforms more accountable for when someone talks about killing, shooting up a school, torturing animals, etc. it flags them! If I talk about going to visit a friend in Chicago and suddenly I'm bombarded with ads for hotels in Chicago and airfare there because my Google or Apple eavesdropping device (cell phone) was listening in, it shouldn't be that hard for them!
9. If someone commits a mass shooting, they get charged with Domestic Terrorism. Period.
10. Teachers get to see children growing up. They can see how they mature and progress. By 3rd grade, they can tell who's going to be the problems. It should be noted on their records. Same with 6th grade. By 9th grade, if there's a pattern emerging that the student may be either a danger to themselves or others, they should be have a psychiatric evaluation with the results determining if they can be allowed to purchase firearms. And again, there should be a process for the student to get their rights restored.

Now, if you want to add in violence in video games, music lyrics, and movies as contributing factors, be my guest. At the same time, don’t tell me I shouldn’t have guns because Liam Neeson and other Hollywood elites who have armed security say they’re bad, even though they get paid millions to play characters you root for.... with guns. And please don’t have all those who were calling to defund the police now on the “let’s pass more laws” bandwagon, either. If you’re not willing to enforce the existing laws, new ones won’t help. The gun is a tool. If you kill someone by driving drunk, you blame the driver, not the Budweiser. Let’s start by holding people accountable for their actions, rather than holding everyone else accountable for the actions of a few.

Incidentally, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports from 2019 (last full year available), homicide by rifle... ANY rifle, not just assault weapons, was below 400 nationwide for the year. For knives, it was over 4 times that, but knives apparently aren't a problem comparatively. Killing with bare hands and feet is almost double that of rifles. If you really want to get to the bottom of the page, far right hand corner, it's handguns, but since no one would accept an outright ban on these, it's easier to point to a strawman argument that assault weapons are the reason for all these shootings, when in fact they're really just a very small part that the media tends to amplify to support a preferred position.

 

[USMC06RET]

Anybody? What happens with the freedom week magazines? Can you use them or do they sink in a boating accident

This venue appears to be an unreliable source of legal advice.

That said, here is the current, in effect, California law pertaining to this issue, a link showing the perspective of the CADOJ on the matter, a couple of links to different incidents where people were charged with possession and a link to a private criminal law firm's interpretation and explanation of the law. Anyone who tells you this law is not in effect in California is dead wrong. Also, the recent 9th circuit decision has not been appeal to SCOTUS as of yet. Through EVERY appeal of the law, the ban has remained in effect pending the outcome of the appeal. If it goes to SCOTUS, the ban will remain in effect pending the decision from SCOTUS.

From the state of California penal code. (see attachment for a screen capture)

California Code, PEN 32310.

From the California DOJ (the folks who prosecute said crimes)
California’s Large-Capacity Ban Declared Constitutional: Attorney General Bonta Celebrates Important Win for Firearm Safety

California’s Large-Capacity Ban Declared Constitutional: Attorney General Bonta Celebrates Important Win for Firearm Safety

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a statement after an en banc panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that California’s large-capacity magazine ban does not violate the Second Amendment. Large-capacity magazines are firearm magazines...

oag.ca.gov

Here are a couple of examples of people who have been prosecuted for possessing high capacity magazines in California

Man arrested near Trump rally in California on gun charges

Sheriff's office says man arrested, identified as Vem Miller, was charged with possession of loaded firearm and possession of high-capacity magazine

www.voanews.com

https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/news/san-francisco-police-make-arrest-resulting-seizure-multiple ( four counts possession of large capacity magazine (32310(a) PC) )


An Excerpt from the Shouse Law Group: You might want to read the entire piece, not just the except.

§ 32310 PC - California Law re Large-Capacity Magazines

California Penal Code § 32310 PC makes possessing, selling, purchasing, giving away, importing, transporting, or making large-capacity magazines (LCMs) illegal.

www.shouselaw.com

1. What is the current law regarding high-capacity magazines?​

On September 22, 2023, a federal judge in California held that PC 32310—the state ban on large-capacity magazines—was unconstitutional. However, the ban will stay in place while the Ninth Circuit considers the issue.

On November 30, 2021, the Ninth Circuit upheld the state ban on large-capacity magazines. However, the United States Supreme Court vacated that opinion and asked the court to reconsider the issue in light of a recent United States Supreme Court ruling regarding firearm rights.1

The magazines in question had been prohibited since 2000. At that time, the law said that those who owned them before are now allowed to keep them. In 2016, this provision was removed, meaning no gun owners could possess a large-capacity magazine.

 

[jhsd20]

I'm going to post the very first paragraph from the decision itself.

"The en banc court held that a California law banning the possession of large-capacity magazines comports with the Second Amendment, reversed the district court’s contrary conclusion, and remanded with the instruction to enter judgment in favor of the Attorney General of the State of California."
Thus, until the district courts follows this instruction, enters judgement in favor of the AG, and lifts all stays and injunctions, the law in CA has not changed.

When Bruen won in scotus, CCWs were not issued until Bonta changed the law saying they must be issued.

Likewise, the law in CA will not change until the district courts says it does. If this is a final ruling (which it is not since scotus appeal is pending), CA9 can hold Benitez in contempt of the court if he doesn't change it, remove him and replace him with someone who will. But CA9 cannot implement law in California or any state! This is part of judicial checks and balances.

TLDR: Keep your magazines until the CA district courts reverses it's decision and rules in favor of AG. This is likely not going to happen until after SCOTUS appeals are finalized. if you want to be absolutely safe, please destroy your magazines.

I still shoot them every other weekend (including this last weekend) at matches with active duty law enforcement along with hundreds of others and never been bothered.

The SDPD CCW explicity says you can carry legally owned magazines over 10 rounds. why would they even need to bother if mere possession is prohibited? LEO exempt individuals don't need CCWs.

https://www.sdsheriff.gov/i-want-to/get-a-permit-or-license/regulatory-licenses-and-fees/concealed-weapons-license

Can a CCW licensee carry an approved firearm with more than ten rounds in the magazine if that high capacity magazine is legal?​

The CCW license does not define magazine capacity, just the firearm. If the magazine and firearm are legal to possess in the state of California, and the firearm is listed on the license, a CCW permit holder may carry. (Note: California firearms laws are subject to change. It is the responsibility of the CCW permit holder to ensure the firearm & magazine are in compliance with California law at the time of carry.)

 

[USMC06RET]

https://www.sdsheriff.gov/i-want-to/get-a-permit-or-license/regulatory-licenses-and-fees/concealed-weapons-license

When Benitez heard the case in 2023 the large capacity mag ban was in place. When he rendered his decision, he DID NOT issue an injunction of the ban. Benitez decision was "stayed" by the ninth circuit, that means, his decision was put aside, rendered inert, until the ninth circuit issued their finding in the appeal, read this: http://archive.today/276ks . That means the LCM ban was still in place while the appeal was heard and the ban remains in-place to this day! For anyone who is interested, here is a link to the ninth circuit's ruling: Ninth Circuit March 2025 ruling on LCMs

Benitez writing up the judgement of the 9th circuit is simply a formality, it changes nothing as the ban was and still is in effect.

If you want to tempt fate and carry your LCMs in public, that's up to you. Just don't commit any crime that brings any focus on yourself when you are in possession of the mags, also, if you happen to shoot someone, even if it's justified, odds are those mags are going to complicate your life. Just because LEOs have not arrested and charged you for possessing LCMs doesn't mean it's legal. Additionally, the people who prosecute criminal offences in California, the DOJ and specifically the Attorney General have clearly stated that simply possessing LCM's is ILLEGAL for all but LEOs and active duty military (in specific circumstances).

Quoting from your post:

"Can a CCW licensee carry an approved firearm with more than ten rounds in the magazine if that high capacity magazine is legal?

The CCW license does not define magazine capacity, just the firearm. If the magazine and firearm are legal to possess in the state of California, and the firearm is listed on the license, a CCW permit holder may carry. (Note: California firearms laws are subject to change. It is the responsibility of the CCW permit holder to ensure the firearm & magazine are in compliance with California law at the time of carry.)"

This clearly states that a CCW MUST comply with California magazine capacity laws. Period, full stop. Not really sure why you are bringing in the issue of CCW. I couldn't find anything at the link you provided that says non-LEO and non-active duty can legally carry LCMs. Sure, if you are a member of an exempt super minority, you can legally carry LCMs. From what I can tell you are neither a LEO or a member of the active duty military.

 

[jhsd20]

When Benitez heard the case in 2023 the large capacity mag ban was in place. When he rendered his decision, he DID NOT issue an injunction of the ban. Benitez decision was "stayed" by the ninth circuit, that means, his decision was put aside, rendered inert, until the ninth circuit issued their finding in the appeal, read this: http://archive.today/276ks .

This specific part is where you're mistaken.

In 2023 Duncan was reheard by Benitrz after being sent back to him by the 9CA, after the 9CA's en banc decision itself was vacated by SCOTUS. Throughout all this, the original Preliminary Injunction still stood and posession was still legal, because it was put in place 2 years before the original decision.

Scotus vacating the decision rewound the status of the law back to 2019, when the PI was in place protecting posession but the case itself was undecided, making acquisition illegal. Benitez ruled in favor of the plaintiffs again, 9th CA stayed his decision immediately pending appeal (your LA times article), thus preventing magazines from being sold. At that moment, the most recent court decision despite a stay was still a victory for the plaintiffs... how can you criminalize an act in which the most recent court decision was its favor?? The most that can be done was to keep the status quo before the case, which was posession = legal acquisition =not. As it was in June 2017 and has been since 2000. The stay and the PI are there specifically so that we citizens don't have to keep dealing with flip flopping laws.... legal today, illegal the next, then legal again. It was NOT a reversal of Benitez's decision, that only happened just now.

It was only last week where the status of the most recent decision changed to in favor of the AG. But CA law does not until the district courts revises its ruling in favor of the AG as instructed by the 9th, which they have not done yet! And most likely will not until the case is decided by SCOTUS. The higher courts do not rule FOR the lower courts, they instruct them in how the ruling should be done... this is an important distinction. Thus the Preliminary Injunction is still in place and the law remains as is in June 2017.

I bring up CCW because hundreds of us, including me, asked the sheriff "Can we carry freedom week mags" and the answer was "yes". To the point where they made it the FIRST question in their faq. Why didn't they arrest us on the spot for posession if it was illegal?

Obviously the disclaimer that we need to know our own laws is there. But the question wouldn't even be on the FAQ let alone the very first if it was limited to a very limited few.

 

[Drivedabizness]

Technically, what causes victims to die is that they were the victims of a shooting event. Full stop.

I will draw on my own personal experience and say that the more rounds my unit was able to put down range at the enemy and the more rapidly we could reload was a deciding factor in numerous engagements.

For a mass shooter to inflict maximum casualties, that shooter requires targets of opportunity and the ability to terrorize those targets by putting as much lead in the air as possible for as long as possible. An example of this would be the 2017 Las Vegas mass murder event committed by Stephen Paddock at the Route 91 Harvest music festival.

I will say this again, I am more than open to better ideas (meaning doable) that can help mitigate the carnage.

None of us has a right to "better ideas" that infringe on the rights of our fellow Americans. That's not how this works.

 

[USMC06RET]

None of us has a right to "better ideas" that infringe on the rights of our fellow Americans. That's not how this works.

Actually, that is exactly how it works, it is called legislation and judicial review to ensure that no individual's rights, under the constitution are infringed upon.

 

[USMC06RET]

This specific part is where you're mistaken.

Negative. You are dead wrong about the law not being in effect.

Let me use your logic. Explain why and how the two people in these articles were charged with possession if possession was not illegal?

San Francisco Police Make Arrest Resulting in Seizure of Multiple Firearms 22-103 | San Francisco Police Department

www.sanfranciscopolice.org

Man arrested near Trump rally in California on gun charges

Sheriff's office says man arrested, identified as Vem Miller, was charged with possession of loaded firearm and possession of high-capacity magazine

www.voanews.com

 

[Custodian]

This is a Cold Civil War people, train accordingly

 

[jhsd20]

Negative. You are dead wrong about the law not being in effect.

Let me use your logic. Explain why and how the two people in these articles were charged with possession if possession was not illegal?

San Francisco Police Make Arrest Resulting in Seizure of Multiple Firearms 22-103 | San Francisco Police Department

www.sanfranciscopolice.org

Man arrested near Trump rally in California on gun charges

Sheriff's office says man arrested, identified as Vem Miller, was charged with possession of loaded firearm and possession of high-capacity magazine

www.voanews.com

Will do. Those are polymer magazines with date stamps. If they are made after 2019, they could not have been acquired during freedom week, thus illegal to possess.

All magazines bought after 2000, with the exception of those bought in a specific week in 2019, ARE illegal to possess. The court must prove that you bought them outside those periods for a successful charge, and with date stamped mags that is very easy.

 

[DB>)>]

Negative. You are dead wrong about the law not being in effect.

Let me use your logic. Explain why and how the two people in these articles were charged with possession if possession was not illegal?

San Francisco Police Make Arrest Resulting in Seizure of Multiple Firearms 22-103 | San Francisco Police Department

www.sanfranciscopolice.org

Man arrested near Trump rally in California on gun charges

Sheriff's office says man arrested, identified as Vem Miller, was charged with possession of loaded firearm and possession of high-capacity magazine

www.voanews.com

Simple, the rank and file take their orders from higher ups like Bonta and Newsom who proclaim "WE WON!" to the public while the issue is still pending SCOTUS appeal, where it's already been vacated once, and likely will be again...

I recently ran across some idjits that still think singing "Happy Birthday" in a restaurant will result in legal action and damages... that sillyness ended about a decade ago. Most people believe as they are told (like Gru's announcement), and if they aren't directly affected, are too lazy to dig deeper.

While it isn't always true, ANY law challenged on grounds of being un-Constitutional should be subject to INJUNCTION until final adjudication, since it takes years and sometimes decades to restore Constitutional RIGHTS while they are delayed and denied as un-Constitutional laws are piled onto the books. "Lawfare" is a sleazy business being used to force "change" when one group or another decides they don't like something, and says "we need to do something, let's pass a law!"

FWIW, a criminal doing criminal things probably DID NOT acquire LCM's "legally" so it's an easy "attaboy, we did good" to add the additional charges... and post on the LEA Facebook page. Depending on the skill of the legal counsel, it may not go much further than that.

Just to be clear, I don't want any criminal or lunatic to have access to the means to do violence or harm to others, but those types walk among us, and likely always will. Thus the right to SELF DEFENSE.

 

[USMC06RET]

Will do. Those are polymer magazines with date stamps. If they are made after 2019, they could not have been acquired during freedom week, thus illegal to possess.

All magazines bought after 2000, with the exception of those bought in a specific week in 2019, ARE illegal to possess. The court must prove that you bought them outside those periods for a successful charge, and with date stamped mags that is very easy.

Again, negative. Date stamps are irrelevant. Read the law! Here is the link, again: California Code, PEN 32310.

 

[jhsd20]

The law with a specific section regarding posession that is currently enjoined by a PI and not enforceable? Read it many, many times. Years before this conversation, and every step of the way as this case made it's way through the courts.

This decision has been overturned but the injunction described remains in place. this is from the lawyers trying the case themselves. Note they mention that not all police know the law and can charge you for posession... doesn't mean you'll be convicted of it.

https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/FAQ-and-Analysis-Re-Ninth-Circuit-Panel-Decision-08282020.pdf

4. Does this mean that it is now lawful to own or possess magazines over 10 rounds in
California?
YES! And that has always been the case. When California banned the manufacture, importation, and sale
of magazines over 10 rounds in 2000,1 and when it banned the purchase and receipt of such magazines in
2013,2 the state did not then bar the possession of such magazines obtained before the acquisition and
manufacture bans took effect. In other words, the state “grandfathered” these magazines.
California voters approved Proposition 63 in 2016, making possession of magazines over 10 rounds a
potential misdemeanor offense. But on June 29, 2017, before Prop 63’s possession ban took effect, the
Honorable Judge Roger Benitez issued a preliminary injunction in Duncan barring enforcement of the law.3 That preliminary injunction was upheld by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit in 2018 and
remains in effect to this day.4
It is also lawful to possess all those magazines over 10 rounds purchased during “Freedom Week.”
Recall, when Judge Benitez granted summary judgment in the Duncan plaintiffs’ favor, he immediately
halted enforcement of the acquisition ban.5 This resulted in the lawful purchase of countless magazines
over 10 rounds in California. A week later, Judge Benitez paused the importation and transfer of these
magazines pending appeal, but he also held that enforcement of the possession ban remained enjoined,
ensuring that Californians could retain possession of those magazines acquired during “Freedom Week.”6
But be careful, not all police officers understand what happened. Consider keeping yor paperwork..."

It then goes on to say that you cannot buy mags or bring them into the state, just as I have.

Long story short. Legally acquired magazines are still legal to possess. Illegally acquired magazines are obviously illegal.

 

[USMC06RET]

Long story short. Legally acquired magazines are still legal to possess. Illegally acquired magazines are obviously illegal.

Negative, it is not legal to possess LCMs in California unless you are a member of a protected group such as Law Enforcement or active duty military.

I need no further clarification on the law but I sense that you do. Resultantly, I have sent a request for clarification to the CADOJ and will post their response on this site when I receive a reply.

 

[jhsd20]

If you really want to win this / convince me, find me a source saying the preliminary injunction on 32130 has been lifted. not that it's been found constitutional, or legal, or an opinion was oveeturned. Specifically, the Preliminary Injunction on Duncan V Bonta pending appeal has been lifted.

Otherwise I think this debate is done, we've said our piece and our audience has had enough of us.

Edited to add: If you're going to contact the DOJ, just forward them the CRPA pdf I linked in the last post from 2020 and ask if those guidelines are still accurate. It is basically my position.

 

[johncoffee]

I'm actually pretty tuned in. If someone doesn't like it, there are plenty other rooms to check out.

 

[foothillman]

 

[jhsd20]

I'm actually pretty tuned in. If someone doesn't like it, there are plenty other rooms to check out.

Well I'm tired, and I found that CRPA brief which is pretty much my position down to the last word. Also being more authoritative source than just my rehashing of it.