California has the power to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines, and a federal court of appeals ruled Thursday reversed an earlier decision that found state law unconstitutional under strict history-oriented restrictions on gun control measures recently established by the Supreme Court.
Circuit Judge Susan P. Glover, who wrote for the 11-person review board of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, found that the state’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds fell in line with other historic weapons restrictions.
“As far as California law is concerned, a person can own as many bullets, magazines and firearms as they wish. They can fire as many rounds as they like. They can carry bullets, magazines and firearms. Written.
The law was not an “exact match” to historical weapon restrictions, but “there is no need to,” Glover wrote, citing previous case law. The state’s purpose of “protecting innocent people from frequent but devastating events” is “related” to the justification of some historical laws, she wrote, which was sufficient to justify it under modern Supreme Court standards.
The Supreme Court established in 2022 that modern firearms regulations must be consistent with some historical law to be normally legal.
The panel’s decision overturns a opposing decision by a lower court and sends the case back to that court for review.
The ruling is a major victory for California, a coalition of nearly 20 liberal nations who joined the fight to support the ban, and is a measure that he said is important in the fight against mass shootings and other gun violence.
“The California ban on high-capacity magazines has been a key component of efforts to combat gun violence, prevent pointless injuries and deaths, and devastation of communities and families left behind after mass shootings,” says Atty, California. General Rob Bonta said in a statement. “This common sense limit on the number of rounds a gunman can fire before he has to pause to reload is identified as a key intervention to limit the ability of the only shooter to turn a shootout into a massive casualty attack.”
Bonta said the verdict saved lives and was a “significant victory.”
California gun owners and advocacy groups challenged the ban, claiming that more than 20 conservative states, along with them, constituted an illegal violation of the self-defense rights of average, law-abiding Californians.
“This false judgment is not surprising given the tendency of many Ninth Circuit judges to inappropriately limit the protections of the Second Amendment,” said Chuck Michelle, the plaintiff’s lawyer.
Michelle said she intends to review the 9th Circuit’s decision and ask the Supreme Court to leave.
“It’s time for the Supreme Court to do it [rein] In lower courts that have not followed the orders of the Supreme Court, “and this case presents an opportunity for the High Court to highlight it.”
This case has been ongoing for many years and is one of many in California and across the country, known as the New York State Rifle & Pistol Assun, since the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2022 called for such an analysis, has been re-illuminated with an eye on arms laws that were sometimes centuries ago. vs. Brune.
Therefore, the High Court rejected the long-standing pillar of the Second Amendment Act, saying that most restrictions on firearms are legal only if they are deeply rooted in American history or are sufficiently similar to historical rules.
The ruling could be interpreted as states like California as digging into history to find historical laws, such as against outdated weapons such as “trap guns,” establishing an early precedent for current laws against modern weapons such as assault rifles.
In September 2023, San Diego District Judge Roger Benitez held that California’s ban on high-capacity magazines was unconstitutional under the new Brune standards. In October 2023, he determined that the state’s ban on assault rifles was equally unconstitutional.
The 9th Circuit maintained both decisions as they featured for review. Many people in the state were awaiting a decision in the magazine incident on Thursday. This could help clear logjams in other gun lawsuits in California and the US West, where the 9th Circuit holds jurisdiction.
The decision split the panel’s liberal judges from Glover, the appointee of President Clinton, and the conservative judges. Three panel judges appointed by President Trump – Ryan D. Nelson, Patrick J. Bumatay and Lawrence Vandice wrote the opposition.
Bumatay writes that California has a legitimate interest in reducing gun violence, but that there is a long list of gun controls in a clear violation of Brune’s decision, as the long list of gun controls “continuously drives away second amendment guarantees.”
“In the historical understanding of the second amendment, the California magazine ban exists none, even with the latitude of searching for historical analogues,” he wrote.
Nelson wrote in his own opposition that a majority of the panel agreed to Bumatay to uphold California laws “fraud” Supreme Court decisions in Brune.
Source link
