A Brief Summary

In 2016, California passed a law, Cal. Penal Code § 32310. This Act banned not just the sale, but also the possession of any magazine holding more than ten rounds.  There are estimates of more than 100
million such magazines in the United States, and they are perfectly legal in most states.  In California, this new law would have required citizens who possessed such magazines to remove them from the state, transfer them to a licensed dealer, or surrender them to a law enforcement agency for destruction. In 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California enjoined (prohibited) the enforcement of this new law.  The State of California has appealed the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit.  In 2018, a panel of judges of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the issuance of the preliminary injunction.  Though en banc review of the panel decision was sought by California, it was not granted.  Hence the case was remanded to the District Court for trial. 

PDF of Brief Here

On remand, based on an extensive evidentiary record, the District Court on summary judgment held that: 1) Cal. Penal Code § 32310 violates the Second Amendment; and 2) § 32310 also constitutes an unlawful "taking" of property by the state.  California has appealed that ruling and has filed its opening brief.  The brief of appellees (those who challenged the California law in the District Court) is due September 16, and our amicus brief in support of appellees was filed on September 23rd.

This new brief that consists of law enforcement agencies, state and local firearms rights groups. The arguments we have filed is similar to our  last brief that we co-filed.

As of now, this has been rare victory at both the trial and appellate levels in California. This case that we are supporting has the potential to ultimately make it to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Final Note

Whenever we file or co-file a legal brief that might impact somewhere outside of Connecticut, some members inquire how this might benefit our state. Here is the short answer:

Typically, these cases can have a HUGE effect on gun rights nationwide. That’s why many of these same groups filed briefs in support of CCDL in our case in 2013 (Shew v Malloy). If California can confiscate lawfully obtained magazines because they exceed an arbitrary capacity, how soon will it be before Connecticut attempts a similar strategy?