The federal appeals court ruled Thursday that California had the right to ban the Massive Ammunition Magazine, reversing a previous ruling that found that state laws were unconstitutional under the strict, ever-secured restrictions on gun control measures recently established by the Supreme Court.
Circuit Judge Susan P. Graber (Susan P.
“In terms of California law, people may have as many bullets, magazines and guns as possible; they may fire as many bullets as possible and can carry bullets, magazines and guns with them, allowing themselves anywhere. The only effect of arming self-guard is that a person may suffer more restrictions. Write.
Grabber wrote that while the law is not an “exact match” of historical weapon restrictions, it “does not need to be”, he wrote on the grounds of previous case law. The state’s goal is to “protect innocent people from rare but devastating events”, she wrote, “similar” to some historical laws, which is sufficient to justify this under the standards of modern Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Founded in 2022 Modern gun regulations usually have to be consistent with certain historical laws.
The panel decision has been reversed The lower court opposes the rulingand the case was sent back to the court for reconsideration.
The ruling is a major victory for California and a coalition of nearly 20 liberal countries who have participated in fighting to maintain the ban, a measure they describe as crucial to the fight against mass shootings and other gun violence.
“California’s ban on large-capacity magazines has been a key component of our efforts to fight gun violence and prevent meaningless harm and deaths and the destruction of communities and families left behind in the wake of mass shootings,” Atti, California. General Rob Bonta said in a statement. “This common sense limits several rounds of fire that gunmen can fire is identified as a key intervention before they have to stop and reload to limit the ability of lonely shooters to convert shootings into mass casualty attacks.”
Bonta said the ruling would save lives and was a “important victory.”
California gun owners and advocacy groups have challenged the ban, with more than twenty conservative countries joining them in arguing that the restrictions constitute illegal infringement of self-defense rights for Californians who comply with the law.
“This false ruling is not surprising given the tendency of many 9th Circuit judges to improperly limit the protection of the Second Amendment,” said Chuck Michel, the plaintiff’s attorney.
Michelle said he intends to ask the Supreme Court to review and evacuate the 9th Circuit ruling.
“It’s time for the Supreme Court now [rein] He said the case provided an opportunity for the High Court to emphasize this action in the lower court that did not follow the task of the Supreme Court. ”
The case has been ongoing for years and is one of many in California and nationwide, which has re-noted centuries of weapons laws since the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2022, and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association needs to do so. With Bruen.
There, the High Court dismissed the long-term pillar of the Second Amendment Act and said that only most restrictions on guns are legal Deeply rooted in American history, Or similar to some historical rules.
The ruling prompted countries like California to explore history in search of historical laws, including targeting outdated weapons such as “trap guns” – which could be interpreted as establishing early precedents for modern weapons, such as attack rifles.
In September 2023, San Diego District Judge Roger Benitez ruled that California’s ban on large-capacity magazines was unconstitutional under the new Bruin Standard. In October 2023, he ruled that the state’s ban on assault rifles was Also unconstitutional.
The 9th Circuit retains two decisionsbecause it made the decision to review. Many in the state are waiting for a decision in the magazine case Thursday — which could help clear other gun lawsuits, and the 9th Circuit retains jurisdiction in other gun lawsuits in California and the western United States.
The decision separates President Clinton-appointed Graber and the panel’s liberal judge from the conservative judge. Three panel judges appointed by President Trump – Ryan D. Nelson, Patrick J.
Bumatay wrote that California has a reasonable interest in reducing gun violence, but its ongoing gun control measures “continuously eliminate the Second Amendment guarantees” and clearly violated Babrun’s decision.
“Nothing in the historical understanding of the Second Amendment is necessary for California’s magazine ban. Even when looking for historical analogues, there is no certain latitude.”
Nelson wrote in his own objection that he agreed with Bumaty’s agreement that the group’s majority decision insisted on California law for the Supreme Court’s constitutional rule over Bruen.
