GRINNELL, Iowa (August 14, 2020) – In the wake of a ruling by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Brownells has resumed selling its full lineup of rifle, pistol and shotgun magazines to California customers.
Known as Duncan vs Becerra, the case against California’s ban on standard-capacity magazines was brought by the California Rifle & Pistol Association.
The Ninth Circuit applied strict scrutiny in its decision and ruled firearm magazines, including those of 30-rounds capacity or more, are “protected arms under the Second Amendment.”
The entire ruling can be read at the United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit site.
Effective immediately, Brownells will once again ship magazines to California customers.
To see Brownells full lineup for popular magazines for AR-15 style, AK-47 style and other commonly-owned semi-automatic rifles and pistols, visit the magazine section of the Brownells website.
You shouldn’t play antigunner word games.
The phrase “standard capacity magazine” confirm that there are – as the antigunner’s fiction purports – “high capacity magazines”.
Exactly. They should be called “Constitutionally protected capacity” magazines.
While I agree with you, remember that the term “Large Capacity Magazine”, or LCM, is a legal term within our California Penal Code, and sometimes other entities or companies will use it (or “High Cap”) to clarify that they’re referring to mags holding 10+ rounds.
In some conversations, the correction to “standard capacity” is appropriate. In others, it’s just nomenclature.
Being born and raised in Calif, there are many words defined by Calif Penal Code and the majority retain definitions that are ubiquitous and/or hold very little water. Best, and worst, thing I’ve ever done is leave that State. Standard capacity is defined as 30 rnd mags. 10 and 20’s are not standard capacity nor are 40 and 60’s. Those are referred by reduced capacity or extra capacity. Using Calif definitions in conversations is like using Eubonics in English class.
30+ round mags = standard capacity
< 30 round mags = limited capacity
This is the preferred nomenclature.
Congrats Californians! Unfortunately they will be banned again by the time they are back in stock.
Gonna be a lot harder this time since the Appeals court said they are protected under the 2nd
The commies in Cali will try, but have no real recourse now
Hoping our brothers and sisters in Cali take the advantage and get the retarded “assault”weapons ban reversed too
California will appeal for an en banc hearing and ask for an injunction. The en banc hearing will be granted as will be the injunction (the state will face “irreparable harm” or something). California will win on appeal and the case will then be appealed to and ignored by SCOTUS. That’s because John Roberts is a constitutional subversive who once again just kept any Second Amendment case off their docket for the next term.
Victory will be short lived and it will be up to the American people to end the cloak of judicial tyranny we live under. We don’t need a politically corrupt court system to tell us what our liberties truly are.
At least that’s the way I see it. In the meantime, enjoy the mags gentlemen. Some of us in other unconstitutional ban states are envious.
You didn’t take the time to actually read it, did you? The ban was already shot down by the federal district court and now the 9th circuit court of appeals. There’s only one court left to appeal to. If they decide not to hear it, it’s the law of the land for states in the ninth circuit. CA probably has AG’s in states outside of the ninth telling them not to appeal it.
Actually, there are still technically a maximum of 3 appeals left:
* “en banc” rehearing — rehear the case at the 9th circuit with “all” the judges (actually 11, because the 9th is so big, and there are special rules for circuits with 15 or more judges).
* True en banc rehearing — rehear the case at the 9th circuit again, but with ALL the judges in the 9th. In practice these requests have never been granted.
* SCOTUS.
At this point, there is no reason to assume that CA won’t appeal this for en banc rehearing. When that happens, it’s very much a tossup–Ignoring the partially-retired “senior” judges, the 9th currently has a 13:16 split, and that split does not favor gun rights. That’s much better than it was in 2016 when the en banc rehearing of the Peruta case ruled against gun rights, but it’s far from a ratio I’m comfortable with.
At this point, if the en banc panel overturns the case, it’s likely a dead issue.
On the other hand, if the en banc panel also affirms the lower court’s ruling, it will be a much more interesting case–That will put the power to appeal to SCOTUS in the hands of CA–Given the precedent set in Heller/McDonald, where SCOTUS merely agreed with appeals court rulings, there’s a good chance CA wouldn’t appeal to SCOTUS (which is what happened in the IL carry rights case, Moore v. Madigan–IL didn’t appeal because they were afraid SCOTUS would agree with the 7th Circuit overturning their carry ban.
That said, if CA looks at the recent precedent that SCOTUS has set by hearing and then tossing back NYSRPA v. NYC as moot, and refusing to hear basically all other gun rights cases since McDonald in 2010, there is a chance that CA might try appealing to SOTUS. At that point, it’s a huge tossup–Will they even take the case? If they do, will Roberts vote against gun rights again?
“California will appeal for en banc rehearing, and will win at that hearing.”
Maybe, maybe not. Trump has put 10 judges on the 9th circuit since 2018, which brings the total active Bush II/Trump judges to 13, and the total active Clinton/Obama judges to 16.
It’s not a comfortable split, but it’s the best things have looked for us there in decades. With Peruta v. San Diego in 2016, we didn’t even have a prayer of the en banc panel giving us a fair hearing. With this case, we actually have a chance–probably somewhere around 3 in 7.
Wow… Now that there is precedence we need to fight the same ban here in CO.
Good luck! I am hopefully for you guys and everyone else through the US affected by magazine capacity laws. Next.. reverse “assault weapon” laws!
Pretty sure RMGO shafted us on that, Sean. Difference between Colo and Calif is we can, and always have, been able to buy and own standard capacity mags in Colo…even after the ban and subsequent RMGO dumpster fire. So if those who attempt to infringe feel better by having legislation on the books that define standard capacity, I’m happy their feels are quelled. The reality is quite contrary with every mag in every capacity is readily available in Colorado minus Saiga12 drums…good luck finding one of those.
Living in California from what everything I’ve read is that the stay is still in effect which legally is suppose to mean sales of regular capacity mags is still restricted.
I’m no lawyer, did I misinterpret something I read? Are sales legal now?
Legal as of now. Who knows Monday?
Incorrect.
The district court ruled against CA, and put through an injunction preventing CA from enforcing the ban.
A week later, the district court judge issued a partial stay on the enforcement of his earlier injunction–In short, the mags that got in during freedom week are OK, but no more until the appeals on the appeal is settled.
At this point, the district court judge’s stay is still in place, meaning that importing so-called “large capacity” magazines to CA is still not officially legal.
At this point, we’re likely to see that stay remain in place for the time being, since the case will likely be appealed for en banc rehearing (reheard with 11 judges instead of only 3) in the 9th Circuit. From there, if the en banc panel sides with gun rights, the stay will likely remain in place until CA either runs out the clock and declines to appeal to SCOTUS, or until CA’s appeal to SCOTUS is resolved (either through SCOTUS denying to hear it, or SCOTUS hearing it, and ruling in favor of gun rights).
TLDR: We are likely still months or even years away from it being fully legal to ship so-called “large capacity” magazines to CA.
its cheap political point scoring. dont be conned that this has anything to do with anybodies rights and recreational obsessions. the bastards are merely sweeping you crumbs off the table so you’re not too hungry at the feast.
“ever feel like youve been cheated?”
Brownells is refunding orders
This statement is not true
This is false.
Yes they’re excepting orders now like some companies but so far no company has or is shipping to ca
Stop the false advertisement