9TH CA Rules CA Std Cap Mag Ban Unconstitutional

Rate this topic

2 posts in this topic

Posted (edited) · Report post

A 3 judge panel on the 9th CA today ruled 2-1 that CA's ban on standard capacity mags is Unconstitutional. Majority opinion stated that while it was admirable to try and stem gun violence it could not violent the COTUS 2A.


It's expect an en banc request will follow quickly though.  


"The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs challenging California
Government Code § 31310, which bans possession of largecapacity magazines (“LCMs”) that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition; and held that the ban violated the Second Amendment".

Edited by Rickman

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

In American constitutional law, strict scrutiny is the highest and most stringent standard of judicial review, and results in a judge striking down a law unless the government can demonstrate in court that a law or regulation:

1) is necessary to a "compelling state interest";
2) is "narrowly tailored" to achieving this compelling purpose; and
3) uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve the purpose.


Intermediate scrutiny is only invoked when a state or the federal government passes a statute which negatively affects certain protected classes. To pass intermediate scrutiny, the challenged law must:
1) further an important government interest; and 
2) must do so by means that are substantially related to that interest.


The Second Amendment has been treated as a second class constitutional right by courts, through the application of intermediate scrutiny. The Ninth Circuit affirming the District Court’s application of strict scrutiny to a gun control law creates precedent for it courts to do so in the future. It places a significant burden on the state to overcome this standard. 
Also, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a grant of Rule 56 motion for summary judgment- that’s no trial. As a matter of law, based upon the evidence and legal authority, the State lost and there was no triable issue of material fact for a trier of fact to decide.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.