What Are California Large-Capacity Magazine Laws?
In California Large-capacity magazines (LCMs), are defined as ammunition feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds, with exceptions for certain .22 caliber tube devices, permanently altered devices, and lever-action firearm tubular magazines. Below is a summary of the laws, updated to include constitutional concerns raised under NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022) and other relevant gun cases:
Key Provisions of California LCM Laws
Prohibitions: It is illegal to manufacture, import, sell, give, lend, buy, or receive LCMs or LCM conversion kits (devices enabling a magazine to hold over 10 rounds).
Proposition 63 (2016): This law banned possession of LCMs effective July 1, 2017, requiring owners to modify, sell to licensed dealers, transfer to law enforcement, remove from the state, or destroy them. Enforcement is currently delayed due to ongoing litigation, particularly Duncan v. Becerra.
Exceptions: LCMs are permitted for government agencies, law enforcement, military use, or as props in film/TV production. They can be resold to these entities under federal regulations. Permits for possession, transport, or sale between licensed dealers and out-of-state customers may be issued for good cause.
Firearm Industry Standards: California prohibits firearm industry members from producing or selling LCMs deemed “abnormally dangerous” or likely to cause public harm, with civil remedies for violations.
Constitutional Concerns Under Bruen and Other Gun Cases
Large capacity magazines are safer than low capacity magazines for use in self defense or the defense of others. When someone is actually trying to kill or maim another person, more capacity means a greater ability to stop that person. Unlike movies people who are shot do not immediately hit the ground, they keep coming. If children or other vulnerable people are being attacked, the defender should not have to run out of bullets.
We understand that psycho nuts should not have access to any firearms and that limiting them to smaller magazines might give rescuers an extra few seconds to subdue the attacker. However, if you are crazy enough to be a psycho shooter, you probably won't hesitate to violate the law and buy a larger capacity magazine.
The constitutionality of California’s LCM ban has been challenged, particularly following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which reshaped the framework for evaluating Second Amendment claims. Key constitutional concerns include:
Bruen’s Text-and-History Test: Bruen established that firearm regulations must be consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Laws restricting gun rights, like California’s LCM ban, must demonstrate a historical analogue from the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification (1791) or Reconstruction (1868). Critics argue that LCM bans lack such historical precedent, as magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds were not common until later, and no equivalent restrictions existed in early American law. In Duncan v. Becerra, a federal judge in September 2023 ruled the LCM ban unconstitutional, citing Bruen, arguing that LCMs are “arms” protected under the Second Amendment and that California failed to show a historical tradition of similar restrictions.
Heller and McDonald Precedents: In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, striking down a handgun ban. McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) extended this right to state and local governments via the Fourteenth Amendment. Opponents of the LCM ban argue that LCMs are commonly used for lawful purposes, such as self-defense, and are thus protected under Heller. They contend that banning LCMs infringes on the core right to self-defense by limiting the ability to fire multiple rounds without reloading, especially in high-stress situations.
Common Use Doctrine: Heller emphasized that the Second Amendment protects arms in “common use” for lawful purposes. LCMs, defined as holding over 10 rounds, are standard in many firearms sold today (e.g., pistols and rifles like the AR-15). In Duncan v. Becerra, the district court noted that millions of LCMs are owned nationwide, suggesting they are in “common use” and thus protected. California’s ban, challengers argue, effectively prohibits a class of commonly used arms, violating Heller.
Means-End Scrutiny Rejected: Pre-Bruen, courts often applied intermediate scrutiny to uphold LCM bans, balancing public safety against Second Amendment rights (e.g., the Ninth Circuit’s 2021 ruling in Duncan). Bruen explicitly rejected means-end scrutiny, invalidating tests that weigh state interests (like reducing gun violence) against constitutional rights. This shift has weakened California’s defense of the LCM ban, as the state must now prove a historical tradition of regulation rather than rely on public safety arguments.
Ongoing Litigation in Duncan v. Becerra: The NRA’s California affiliate has led challenges to the LCM ban. After Proposition 63, the case has seen multiple rulings. In 2019, a district court struck down the ban, but the Ninth Circuit initially upheld it in 2021 under intermediate scrutiny. Post-Bruen, the case was remanded, and in September 2023, the district court again ruled the ban unconstitutional, citing Bruen’s text-and-history standard. The Ninth Circuit has stayed enforcement pending appeal, leaving the ban’s fate uncertain as courts grapple with applying Bruen.
Other Relevant Cases: The Supreme Court’s Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016) per curiam decision reinforced that the Second Amendment protects modern arms, not just those extant in 1791, bolstering arguments that LCMs, as contemporary firearm components, are covered. Additionally, United States v. Rahimi (2024) clarified that regulations on dangerous individuals may pass muster under Bruen, but it did not directly address bans on specific arms like LCMs, leaving Duncan’s outcome reliant on historical analysis.
10th Amendment Argument
The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reserves powers not specifically delegated to the federal government to the states or the people. While it doesn't explicitly mention the 2nd Amendment, it's often argued to reinforce the states' and individuals' rights to bear arms, as these rights are not delegated to the federal government.