The majority said the ammunition “is typically used for legitimate purposes, and is not ‘unusual weapons’ that fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment.”
“Armed self-defense is a fundamental right rooted in tradition and the text of the Second Amendment,” Judge Kenneth Lee wrote for the majority of the panel, consisting of himself and Judge Consuelo Callahan.
Lee specifically notes that the scope of California’s ban is “so sweeping that half of all magazines in America are now legally owned in California.”
Judge Barbara Lynn, however, serves in a dissenting opinion that the California ban does not represent harm to residents’ second Amendment Rights.
“The difference between using a gun versus a gun for self-defense, for example, is far more important than the difference between using a magazine that holds eleven rounds, versus a magazine that has ten rounds,” Lynn wrote. “For this reason, the ban on LCMs is more analogous with a restriction on how someone exercises their Second Amendment rights by limiting the number of bullets a person can fire from a single firearm without loading. “
The appeal against the California ban began in 2016 when Virginia Duncan, and other plaintiffs who owned LCM’s, filed a constitutional challenge to the state’s ban, just two days before it went into effect.
The district court had issued a preliminary injunction causing the law to lapse in time.
The office of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who was able to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, told CNN in a statement that they were reviewing the decision “with the goal of protecting public safety.”
“The Attorney General’s remains committed to using every tool to defend the laws of gun safety in California and to keep our communities safe,” Becerra’s office said.
Nevertheless, Friday’s ruling represents a significant gain for gun activists for the time being. The California Rifle & Pistol Association praised the decision as “a great victory” in a statement.
“This is a huge gain specifically for the right to own this valuable tool for self-defense,” said Chuck Michel, president and general counsel of the organization. “But more generally, this case may present the Supreme Court with an opportunity to put things directly on the underlying issue of what the standard of test for test should be when considering each challenge of the Second Amendment.”
.
