California Magazine Capacity ban struck down

[rtschl]

Benitez ruled “there is no American tradition of limiting ammunition capacity.” He said detachable magazines “solved a problem with historic firearms: running out of ammunition and having to slowly reload a gun.”

“There have been, and there will be, times where many more than 10 rounds are needed to stop attackers,” Benitez wrote. “Yet, under this statute, the State says ‘too bad.’”

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/ne ... -magazines


Good Twiiter/X thread here from Kostas Moros:

[C-dub]

We will see if this one sticks with the new ruling last year by the SCOTUS.

[rtschl]

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld California's ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. Crazy that they found that those magazines are neither arms nor protected accessories.

Interesting thing, Judge Lawrence VanDyk in his dissent, made a video that refuted their majority opinion.

“It is so easy to demonstrate the conceptual failings of the majority’s new test that even a caveman with just a video recorder and a firearm could do it,” VanDyke wrote in his dissent.

VanDyke responded that the majority’s real concern was that his video “unmasks their invented constitutional test as obviously grounded in a factual fantasy.”

https://dailycaller.com/2025/03/20/fede ... ment-case/