Politics
9th Circuit upholds California ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines
California has the authority to ban large-capacity ammunition magazines, a federal appellate court ruled Thursday, reversing a previous decision that found the state law unconstitutional under the strict, history-minded limits on gun control measures recently established by the Supreme Court.
Writing for the 11-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Circuit Judge Susan P. Graber found that the state’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds fell in line with other historical weapons restrictions in that it “restricts an especially dangerous feature of semiautomatic firearms — the ability to use a large-capacity magazine — while allowing all other uses of those firearms.”
“So far as California’s law is concerned, persons may own as many bullets, magazines, and firearms as they desire; may fire as many rounds as they like; and may carry their bullets, magazines, and firearms wherever doing so is permissible. The only effect of California’s law on armed self-defense is the limitation that a person may fire no more than ten rounds without pausing to reload, something rarely done in self-defense,” Graber wrote.
While the law was not a “precise match” to historical weapons restrictions, “it does not need to be,” Graber wrote, citing previous case law. The state’s aim, to “protect innocent persons from infrequent but devastating events,” was “relevantly similar” to the justifications of some historic laws, she wrote, and that was enough to justify it under the modern Supreme Court standard.
The Supreme Court established in 2022 that modern firearms regulations usually must align with some historic law to be legitimate.
The panel’s decision reverses an opposing ruling by a lower court, and sends the case back down to that court for reconsideration.
The ruling was a major win for California and a coalition of nearly 20 liberal states that joined in the fight to uphold the ban, a measure they described as critical in the fight against mass shootings and other gun violence.
“California’s ban on large-capacity magazines has been a key component in our efforts to fight gun violence and prevent senseless injuries and deaths and the devastation of communities and families that are left behind in the wake of mass shootings,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “This commonsense restriction on how many rounds a gunman can fire before they must pause to reload has been identified as a critical intervention to limit a lone shooter’s capacity to turn shootings into mass casualty attacks.”
Bonta said the ruling would save lives and was an “important win.”
California gun owners and advocacy groups challenged the ban, and more than two dozen conservative states argued alongside them that the restrictions amounted to an unlawful infringement on the self-defense rights of average, law-abiding Californians.
“This incorrect ruling is not surprising considering the inclination of many 9th Circuit judges to improperly limit the 2nd Amendment’s protections,” said Chuck Michel, an attorney for the plaintiffs.
Michel said he intended to ask the Supreme Court to review — and vacate — the 9th Circuit’s decision.
“It is high time for the Supreme Court to [rein] in lower courts that are not following the Supreme Court’s mandates,” he said, “and this case presents an opportunity for the High Court to do that emphatically.”
The case, which has been ongoing for years, is one of many in California and around the country that have been re-litigated with an eye toward sometimes centuries-old weapons laws since the Supreme Court’s ruling requiring such analysis in 2022, in a case known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen.
There, the high court rejected a long-standing pillar of 2nd Amendment law and said most restrictions on firearms are legitimate only if they are deeply rooted in American history, or sufficiently similar to some historic rule.
The ruling prompted states like California to delve through history to find historic laws — including against antiquated weapons such as “trap guns” — that could be construed as establishing early precedent for current laws against modern weapons such as assault rifles.
In September 2023, District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego ruled that California’s ban on large-capacity magazines was unconstitutional under the new Bruen standard. In October 2023, he ruled the state’s ban on assault rifles was similarly unconstitutional.
The 9th Circuit stayed both decisions, as it took them up for review. Many in the state were awaiting Thursday’s decision in the magazines case — which could help to clear a logjam in other gun litigation, in California and across the American West, where the 9th Circuit retains jurisdiction.
The decision divided Graber, an appointee of President Clinton, and the panel’s liberal judges from its conservative judges. Three panel judges appointed by President Trump — Ryan D. Nelson, Patrick J. Bumatay and Lawrence VanDyke — wrote dissents.
Bumatay wrote that California has a justifiable interest in reducing gun violence, but that its long list of gun control measures “continually whittle away the Second Amendment guarantee,” and in clear violation of the Bruen decision.
“Nothing in the historical understanding of the Second Amendment warrants California’s magazine ban. Even with some latitude in searching for historical analogues, none exist,” he wrote.
In his own dissent, Nelson wrote that he agreed with Bumatay that the panel majority’s decision upholding California’s law as constitutional “flouts” the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen.
new video loaded: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
transcript
transcript
Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.
-
“Full pardon or commutation?” “Full pardon.”
By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff
June 4, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday.
The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.
A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country.
Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.
The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)
REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.
House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”
Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure.
Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”
“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.
Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah.
“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)
RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH
The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.
“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.
A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.
The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.
Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.
Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.
WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.
Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.
The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.
The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.
The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.
The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.
Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.
On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.
“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.
The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.
In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.
The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.
But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”
After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.
The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.
“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.
The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.
Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.
Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”
Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”
Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.
On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”
“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.
-
Illinois11 minutes agoIllinois lawmakers approve statewide regulations for electric bikes, scooters, skateboards
-
Indiana14 minutes agoKelsey Mitchell eclipses 5,000 career points in Fever victory.
-
Iowa19 minutes agoDoctor fights sanctions, saying he’ll be ‘run out of practice’ by Iowa board
-
Kentucky29 minutes agoKentucky sees improvement in drought conditions
-
Louisiana34 minutes agoLouisiana Tech launches Center for Literacy and Learning to support students, educators
-
Maine41 minutes agoPilots aboard hydrogen balloon are attempting to cross Atlantic Ocean from Maine
-
Maryland44 minutes agoMaryland troopers attend high school graduation of student whose dad died in line of duty
-
Michigan49 minutes agoMichigan football beats out Alabama, Texas for 4-star DB Blake Jenkins
