Court Backs California’s Ban on High-Capacity Magazines

The legal battle over California’s high-capacity magazine ban has finally hit a major milestone. As reported by William of Copper Jacket TV, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued its long-awaited en banc ruling in Duncan v. Bonta, a case that has been winding its way through the courts for nearly a decade. In a sharply divided 7-4 decision, the court upheld California’s ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The decision reversed two earlier rulings from District Judge Roger Benitez, who had twice declared the law unconstitutional.

This decision marks a dramatic – and for many, disappointing – turn in what has become one of the most important gun rights cases in the country. California’s law has been a flashpoint for years, sparking passionate debate on both sides of the Second Amendment divide. With this ruling, the state’s restriction on magazine capacity is, at least for now, firmly back in place.

The Origins of the Case

The case began back in 2017 when plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of California’s law banning the possession of magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. The law had existed for years, but a more aggressive enforcement version was passed via Proposition 63. For a brief moment, this challenge led to what many gun rights supporters now call “Freedom Week” – a seven-day window in which millions of standard-capacity magazines were legally purchased, sold, and shipped into California before a stay was issued.

As William described it, “People emptied their credit cards… They brought them in by the millions.” That week gave Californians a taste of what gun owners in other states consider normal – and it became a rallying point for Second Amendment supporters across the nation.

Judge Benitez’s Strong Opinions

Judge Roger Benitez, who originally ruled on the case, has become something of a hero among gun rights advocates. William even jokingly referred to him as “St. Benitez” for his consistent rulings defending the Second Amendment. In both 2019 and 2021, Benitez ruled that the magazine ban violated the Constitution, citing Supreme Court precedent and arguing that such magazines are “in common use” for lawful purposes like self-defense.

Benitez’s judgments were grounded in the Supreme Court’s rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. He found that California failed to provide a relevant historical analog to justify its restriction, making the law unconstitutional under the current legal framework for evaluating Second Amendment cases.

Ninth Circuit Reverses Course

But the Ninth Circuit’s en banc panel didn’t agree. According to the official ruling, the majority held that California’s law “comports with the Second Amendment” and reversed the District Court’s findings. The judges then remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment in favor of California Attorney General Rob Bonta. In short, the panel sided with the state, validating the magazine ban.

This decision, though expected by some, still came as a punch to the gut for those who had hoped the tide was turning toward broader gun rights. William noted that many viewers wouldn’t be surprised by the outcome – given the Ninth Circuit’s reputation for being the most frequently overturned court in the country – but disappointment ran deep.

Strong Dissents from Conservative Judges

The dissenting opinions in the case were as forceful as they were frustrated. Judge Lawrence VanDyke, one of the four dissenters, went so far as to publish a video dissent on YouTube – an unusual move meant to draw public attention to the case. In the video, VanDyke criticized the majority for accepting the argument that magazines are mere accessories, not arms. “Anyone with a basic familiarity with firearms could show you that this attempted distinction is simply inconsistent with reality,” he said.

The written dissent, joined by Judges Bumatay, Ikuta, Nelson, and VanDyke, argued that California failed to provide any historical analogs to justify banning magazines. They applied the Bruen test and found the ban to be “presumptively unconstitutional.” The judges noted that such magazines are commonly owned by millions of Americans and play a vital role in lawful self-defense – therefore falling under the protection of the Second Amendment.

Word Salad and Legal Gymnastics

William didn’t hold back in his criticism of the ruling. “They did their thing, made their word salads,” he said, suggesting that the court twisted itself into knots to reach a politically motivated decision. He accused the judges of ignoring not only Heller and Bruen, but also the plain language of the Constitution. “They completely ignored Supreme Court precedent,” William argued, calling the logic behind the majority ruling “outrageous” and “ridiculous.”

He also pointed out that California’s legal team had failed to make a convincing argument. “They didn’t have any type of argument, no historical analogs, they didn’t really have anything at all,” he said. Yet despite this apparent lack of evidence, the court ruled in the state’s favor, raising questions about judicial activism and selective interpretation.

Hope at the Supreme Court

Even with this loss, there may still be hope on the horizon. William emphasized that Duncan v. Bonta is now perfectly positioned for a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. “There has not been a case in existence up until this point that is more perfect for the Supreme Court to take,” he said. The case has gone through the full circuit process, features clear disagreement among judges, and deals with a major constitutional question.

If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, it could result in a nationwide ruling that affects not just California, but all states with magazine bans. “Let’s go ahead and move this up to the Supreme Court and overturn all mag bans across the entire country,” William said. Whether or not the Court takes the case remains to be seen, but the groundwork has been laid.

The Broader Legal Landscape

Meanwhile, broader shifts in federal firearm policy are also underway. In a separate report, Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News explained that Attorney General Pam Bondi is actively responding to President Trump’s Second Amendment executive order by removing certain powers from the ATF and initiating new rule-making processes. Though not directly related to Duncan v. Bonta, these changes signal a shift in how gun rights might be handled at the federal level going forward.

Yanis noted that Bondi’s moves – such as revoking the ATF’s frozen authority to handle firearm rights appeals – could create a more transparent, responsive system for restoring rights to nonviolent felons. While California’s ban remains intact for now, other areas of gun policy may soon be headed in the opposite direction.

A Tale of Two Courts

The contrast between California’s ruling and the federal moves being made under Bondi is stark. On one hand, a major federal court has upheld sweeping gun restrictions despite recent Supreme Court guidance. On the other, the Department of Justice is actively working to reframe how gun rights are restored and regulated. This tension between state-level restrictions and federal reconsideration sets the stage for further legal battles – and likely, more trips to the Supreme Court.

Gun rights in the U.S. remain a patchwork of conflicting rulings and regulations. Duncan v. Bonta may have ended its journey through the Ninth Circuit, but it’s far from the final word. With national interest and constitutional questions unresolved, the next phase of this fight may determine how far states can go in regulating what millions consider basic tools for lawful self-defense.

A Chilling Decision

There’s something unsettling about watching judges twist themselves into philosophical pretzels to uphold a law that’s been struck down multiple times before. The idea that a magazine – something that comes standard with nearly every modern firearm – is somehow not protected by the Constitution doesn’t pass the common-sense test. If we start treating essential components as optional accessories, the definition of “arms” quickly becomes meaningless.

But there’s also a strange hope in all of this. These kinds of contradictions and conflicting rulings are exactly what the Supreme Court exists to resolve. If this decision does one thing right, it’s that it sets the stage for clarity. With so much at stake, the Court now has the opportunity – and the responsibility – to draw a hard line on where the Second Amendment begins and ends.

The Fight Isn’t Over Yet

For now, California’s high-capacity magazine ban stands. But the push for nationwide clarity continues. While the decision may have gone against gun owners this time, it has also ignited renewed urgency for clarity from the nation’s highest court. With strong dissents and a fully developed case, Duncan v. Bonta may very well be the case that forces the Supreme Court to finally weigh in on magazine bans. At the same time, actions by Attorney General Pam Bondi show that federal policy is also in motion, signaling change in other corners of the gun rights landscape. 

Whether this is a temporary setback or a turning point depends on what comes next – but one thing is clear: the fight is still very much alive. The next chapter may be the most important one yet – not just for California, but for every American who values their right to keep and bear arms.