The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed the constitutionality of California's ban on magazines over 10 rounds in a 7-4 ruling. They found little self-defense function for large-capacity magazines, arguing that they exacerbate mass shooting harms. The majority opinion emphasized that these magazines are accessories, not protected arms, and that the law reflects traditional gun regulations aimed at public safety. Dissenting opinions, notably by judges appointed under Trump, challenged this view, demonstrating a deepening ideological divide on gun rights interpretation in the courts. California's Attorney General hailed the ruling as a life-saving measure.
The majority ruled the California law did not violate the Second Amendment in part because the magazines are optional accessories, not arms protected by the Constitution.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke included a video of himself operating firearms in his chambers, arguing that the ruling on magazines being accessories is inconsistent with reality.
Collection
[
|
...
]