The California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) has filed an important Second Amendment lawsuit challenging California’s ban on the possession of standard-capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.
The lawsuit, Duncan v. Becerra, challenges California’s ban on possession of standard capacity magazines as it violates the Second Amendment and the due process clause of the United States Constitution.
Duncan is the second in a series of carefully planned lawsuits challenging the anti-gun laws passed last year, which have collectively become known as “gunmageddon” among gun owners.
The named plaintiffs are Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio, Christopher Waddell, and California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated. Xavier Becerra is California’s attorney general.
The suit was filed in federal court in the Southern District.
From the introduction of the lawsuit:
Millions of law-abiding Americans own firearms equipped with magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. There is nothing unusual or novel about this technology. Indeed, many of the nation’s best-selling handguns and rifles come standard with magazines that can hold more than ten rounds, and firearms equipped with such magazines are safely possessed by law-abiding citizens in the vast majority of states. The reason for the popularity of these magazines is straightforward: In a confrontation with a violent attacker, having enough ammunition can be the difference between life and death.
Although magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds have existed and been in common use for more than a century, California banned their manufacture, sale, import, or transfer effective January 1, 2000. In the state’s view, these standard-issue magazines are actually “large-capacity magazines” that threaten public safety. Last year, the state took the additional and extreme step of banning the mere possession of magazines over ten rounds. Under the revised law, California Penal Code section 32310 (“Section 32310”), owners of such magazines who want to keep the property they lawfully acquired and have used only for lawful purposes may no longer continue to do.
The lawsuit goes on to say Section 32310 violates multiple constitutional provisions, including impermissibly burdening the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, the Takings Clause, and the Due Process Clause. Click here to download a copy of the suit.
We will continue to report on this as the suit moves throught the legal system.