Attorneys general in 25 states filed an amicus brief Thursday in opposition to California’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
This from msn.com.
Led by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, a Republican, the attorneys pushed to uphold a San Diego judge’s decision to block the ban from taking effect.
The district court properly concluded that California’s law unconstitutionally restricts the fundamental right to keep and bear common firearm magazines typically possessed for lawful purposes.
Last month, a coalition of over a dozen attorneys general signed onto an amicus brief supporting the ban in California. New York Attorney General Letitia James, a communist/globalist, and 19 others argued the ban is a constitutionally permissible restriction and should be able to take effect.
James said:
Large-capacity magazines make weapons even more deadly and can lead to horrific mass-casualty events.
These dangerous accessories are intended to ensure the maximum number of bullets can be fired without the shooter needing to take time to reload.
The pain, suffering, and loss of life that can be inflicted by a single shooter utilizing large-capacity magazines is horrific, which is why these dangerous accessories have no place in our communities.
California’s ban on high-capacity magazines, which was adopted through a 2016 proposition, has long been under legal battle. The case went to the Supreme Court of the United States before being sent back to the lower courts following its June 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego ruled in September that the state’s ban on ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 bullets was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Benitez cited the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that requires restrictions to be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta appealed the ruling, and in October, the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit granted the state’s request to keep portions of the ban on large-capacity magazines in place.
However, later that month, Benitez once again ruled that the ban was unconstitutional, stating it had no historical precedent and violated people’s Second Amendment rights.
Judge Benitez wrote in a 79-page decision on Oct. 19:
In the United States, with its long tradition of gun ownership, there are no historical laws prohibiting simple possession of any type of firearm until long after the 1868 adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. That is too late.
Further:
The State has identified no national tradition of firearm regulation so broad in its coverage or so far reaching in its effect as its extreme ‘assault weapon’ statute.
An appeals court has ruled that the state’s bans will remain in effect while Bonta appeals the lower court’s decision.
