Challenge to California City’s Gun Restriction Heads to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Get Legal Help Today
Secured with SHA-256 Encryption
UPDATED: Nov 17, 2014
It’s all about you. We want to help you make the right legal decisions.
We strive to help you make confident insurance and legal decisions. Finding trusted and reliable insurance quotes and legal advice should be easy. This doesn’t influence our content. Our opinions are our own.
Editorial Guidelines: We are a free online resource for anyone interested in learning more about legal topics and insurance. Our goal is to be an objective, third-party resource for everything legal and insurance related. We update our site regularly, and all content is reviewed by experts.
Only weeks after California gun sellers filed a federal lawsuit against a state law that prohibits the display of firearms in view of the public, gun-rights activists in the state have gained another federal review by challenging a law in Sunnyvale that limits the size of legal gun magazines to 10 rounds. A coalition of gun supporters, highlighted by the National Rifle Association (NRA), argue that the California town’s law violates the constitution, and this week the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear the case.
Sunnyvale, California Limits Gun Magazine Size
Last year, residents of Sunnyvale, a California city of 146,000 located in Silicon Valley, approved ballot “Measure C” and enacted four new restrictions on gun ownership. Standing out among the four was the prohibition on gun magazines that contained more than 10 rounds of ammunition, a law that limits gun sellers and requires current gun owners to get rid of all non-compliant magazines. California state law has made illegal the manufacture and sale of magazines with more than 10 rounds, but after the passage of Measure C, Sunnyvale takes the issue a step further by making even the possession of a gun magazine that contains more than 10 rounds a crime.
With California’s state law only banning municipalities from passing gun legislation that addresses licensing or registration of firearms, Sunnyvale’s magazine restriction is clearly within the permissible sphere of influence afforded municipalities. Questions arise, however, over whether or not the nature of the restriction violates the Second Amendment’s Right to Bear Arms by effectively limiting gun ownership to 10-magazine weaponry.
Legal Challenge to Gun Magazine Restriction
The NRA-led gun-rights coalition challenging the Sunnyvale magazine law allege that the municipality has overextended its permissible reach by making ownership of magazines with more than 10 rounds a crime. Arguing that the law violates the Right to Bear Arms by restricting what types of guns, and gun magazines, homeowners can possess, the gun-rights challengers are asking the federal judiciary to find the legislation unconstitutional. Insisting that Americans own such weapons to protect “hearth and home,” the opponents of Sunnyvale’s law are hoping that the 9th Circuit clarifies the scope of the 2nd Amendment and, in doing so, recognizes the right to own 10 round magazines, which make up more than ½ of the ammunition magazines currently in distribution.
Sunnyvale officials, and supporters of increased gun restriction, disagree and argue that weapons that hold more than 10 rounds are unnecessary for home defense. Citing studies that show large-capacity magazines are not needed for self-defense because “defenders seldom fire more than two shots,” defenders of Measure C believe that the restriction is permissible under a 2nd Amendment analysis. Pointing to use of large-capacity magazines in mass shootings such as the Newtown, Connecticut tragedy in 2012, Sunnyvale officials claim that the restriction is designed to promote safety while still allowing homeowners the right to use firearms in self-defense.
Lower Court Upholds Sunnyvale Law
Along its path to the 9th Circuit, Sunnyvale’s Measure C successfully withstood a challenge in lower federal court. Saying the burden placed on 2nd Amendment rights was “relatively light,” Judge Ronald M. Whyte wrote, “The Sunnyvale law passes intermediate scrutiny, as the court—without making a determination as to the law’s likely efficacy—credits Sunnyvale’s voluminous evidence that the ordinance is substantially tailored to the compelling government interest of public safety.” Because Sunnyvale was able to point to safety concerns addressed by the law and show that homeowner defense did not require large-capacity magazines, the challenge from the gun-rights coalition fell short.
On appeal, the challengers maintained that citizens have a 2nd Amendment right to own magazines with more than 10 rounds, and Sunnyvale’s justification for Measure C does not warrant infringement on constitutional protections afforded firearm possession. With other California cities, including San Francisco, considering similar laws, the 9th Circuit case regarding the constitutionality of Sunnyvale’s magazine restriction ordinance will present a compelling, and impactful, decision on the extent of gun ownership rights in America.