Connect with us

Politics

9th Circuit upholds California ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines

Published

on

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

“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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

“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.

Politics

Crews Drape Tarp Over White House in Latest Trump Restoration

Published

on

Construction workers unfurled a large printed tarp to cover scaffolding installed at the White House’s front entrance. Doug Burgum, the interior secretary, said President Trump had ordered the repairs after noticing damage to columns.

Continue Reading

Politics

WATCH: Trump’s Energy chief reveals what escalating Iran tensions could mean for gas prices

Published

on

WATCH: Trump’s Energy chief reveals what escalating Iran tensions could mean for gas prices

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Energy Secretary Chris Wright is telling Americans not to be concerned about the possibility of another surge of sharp increases in gasoline prices as tensions with Iran have started to escalate once again.

Asked whether Americans should worry about higher prices at the pump and how the Trump administration is preparing to keep the economy stable if the conflict continues to worsen, Wright told Fox News Digital: “It has not been any good behavior from Iran that’s allowed oil to flow. It’s been the United States military.”

“That’s not changing,” he assured, speaking from the Great American State Fair on the National Mall this week.

US CLAWS BACK KEY CONCESSION TO IRAN AFTER FRESH ATTACKS ON COMMERCIAL SHIPS IN STRAIT OF HORMUZ

Advertisement

(Mario Tama/Getty Images) (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

With Iran striking three commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz on Monday and Tuesday, Wright doubled down in urging citizens to not credit Iran for the U.S. military’s work to ensure oil shipments continue flowing through the strait.

“Look, the U.S. Military has been the key asset here,” he said. “They have assured the flow of oil and gas through the Strait of Hormuz throughout. Not at the beginning of this conflict, but through the last six weeks.”

Wright said the administration is closely monitoring global oil supplies as the tentative ceasefire with Iran seemingly came to come to a halt, with President Donald Trump telling Secretary-General Mark Rutte the call for peace with Iran is “over” at the NATO Summit in Turkey on Wednesday.

But, he pointed to the continued shipping through the Strait as evidence that markets should remain stable.

Advertisement

TRUMP SAYS IRAN CEASEFIRE IS ‘OVER’ AFTER IRANIAN ATTACKS TRIGGER MASSIVE US RESPONSE

President Donald Trump speaks at the White House on Tuesday, April 22. (AP/Alex Brandon)

“We’re of course constantly watching the supply of oil, the supply of refined products and what’s going on there,” Wright said. “And I think still all positive trends.”

Beyond geopolitical concerns, Wright also praised the new chain of discounted gas stations across Pennsylvania and New Jersey, Freedom Fuel, which promises customers prices below the national average.

The Trump administration, though not involved with the network, has heavily endorsed the new chain and its 25 locations.

Advertisement

“We love it,” Wright said when asked about Freedom Fuel. “I mean, look, any mechanism we can to lower energy costs for Americans of all kinds, we’re all in on.”

“With Freedom Fuels, they’re just lowering it down to their wholesale price of gasoline,” Wright said. “So they’re not making any money selling gasoline, but they’ve got convenience stores. That’s how most gas stations make money.”

NEWSOM UNDER FIRE AS CALIFORNIA GAS TAX HIKE SENDS PUMP PRICES EVEN HIGHER

Gasoline costs are a known concern for many Americans, and amid surging prices there has been a considerable increase in those opting to purchase electric vehicles to save money long-term at the pump — with Tesla dominating the market for these types of models.

Wright argued one of the benefits to living in America is having the option to choose what type of vehicle you drive.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“We just want people to buy what they would prefer,” he told Fox News Digital when asked his thoughts on increasing calls for support of the electrification of cars. “Consumer choice — you wanna buy an electric car, you wanna buy a gas powered car, diesel powered car, buy a big truck. That’s the choice.”

“That’s why you live in America. You get the choice of all those.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Black mold and $1 wages: Settlement forces immigrant detention centers to protect workers

Published

on

Black mold and  wages: Settlement forces immigrant detention centers to protect workers

In 2023, California regulators levied more than $100,000 in fines against the private operator of a federal immigration facility, kicking off a three-year battle over whether detainees who do work at the facilities should be considered employees.

The question went beyond semantics: If considered employees, the detainees would be subject to state worker protection laws.

A legal settlement announced this week now affirms that private immigrant detention facilities are subject to California’s workplace safety and health requirements.

“Every worker deserves a safe and healthy workplace and should be able to report workplace hazards without fear of retaliation,” said Denisse Gómez, spokesperson for the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health or Cal/OSHA.

Advertisement

“Individuals who perform work in these facilities are entitled to workplace safety protections, and this settlement reinforces Cal/OSHA’s commitment to enforcing those protections and safeguarding vulnerable workers,” she added.

Under the settlement between California and the GEO Group, a Florida-based private prison company, the company recently withdrew its legal challenges and agreed to pay more than $100,000 in the fines.

The GEO Group did not respond to requests for comment.

Back in 2023, Cal/OSHA issued $104,510 in fines against the GEO Group. The agency had found six violations of state code by the company after detainees complained about a lack of protective equipment and proper training while cleaning the facility for $1 per day.

Detainees alleged they routinely wiped black mold off shower walls at the facility, saw black dust spew from air vents and used cleaning solutions that lacked instructions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Advertisement

The biggest fine levied against the GEO Group was for failure to establish and maintain “effective written procedures to reduce employee risk of exposure to aerosol transmissible disease.”

Advocates viewed Cal/OSHA’S recognition of the detainees as workers as a victory that could pave the way for future labor rights fights at other detention centers in the state.

But the GEO Group appealed, arguing that detainees participating in ICE’s voluntary work program make their own schedules and aren’t employees, so hazard exposure couldn’t be “as a result of assigned duties,” as California law states. Plus, the company argued, there wasn’t enough evidence that detainees were exposed to any hazard.

Early last year, the state’s Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board rejected the GEO Group’s argument and found that detainees should be considered “affected employees.”

The GEO Group sued, but three days before a California Superior Court hearing in May, the company and Cal/OSHA reached the settlement.

Advertisement

Along with paying the fines, the GEO Group agreed to draft plans for avoiding aerosol transmissions at 12 secure and reentry facilities in California, including five detention centers that hold immigrants.

“GEO ensures detainees are afforded the necessary tools, equipment, and personal protective equipment … to safely and effectively perform any necessary tasks,” the settlement states.

Gómez said the settlement also leaves intact the appeals board’s ruling that civil immigration detainees who participate in work programs can participate in proceedings anonymously, “acknowledging the potential for retaliation when individuals raise workplace safety concerns.”

But the question of whether detainees are employees and deserve certain protections isn’t entirely resolved — at least not for the federal government.

Last month, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement released new standards for detention facilities across the country. The revised guidelines “emphasize that detainee volunteers participating in the voluntary work program are not considered facility and/or government employees” and thus not entitled to labor regulations.

Advertisement

Attorney Mariel Villarreal said the timing of the new detention standards made her question whether the GEO Group had asked ICE to specify in its standards that detainees are not workers in response to its battle with Cal/OSHA.

“To me, it’s a reaction to this very settlement,” she said. Villarreal works for the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, which filed the original complaint on behalf of detainees who said they worked in unsafe conditions.

Villarreal pointed to a Washington Post report that GEO Group executives privately asked ICE to specify that detainees are not employees of the facilities where they work. Two top Trump administration officials, border czar Tom Homan and acting ICE director David Venturella, previously worked for the GEO Group.

New versions of ICE detention standards take effect as contracts are established or modified, so this year’s rules won’t immediately apply to every facility.

An ICE spokesperson did not comment about the settlement. The spokesperson, who did not provide their name in an emailed statement Wednesday, said the agency has begun transitioning detention facilities to meet the 2026 standards, “building on its longstanding commitment to safe, secure, and professional detention operations.”

Advertisement

“ICE has consistently implemented many of these best practices independently, reinforcing its role as the leader in detention operations,” the spokesperson added.

The GEO Group and other immigrant detention center operators have faced other legal battles over workers’ rights, including lawsuits in Washington, Colorado and California over the $1-per-day payment.

Villarreal said she’s confident that the Cal/OSHA settlement would continue to hold even if California facilities incorporated the new standards. But she said she believes the statements are an attempt by the GEO Group to “sidestep responsibility” and avoid the possibility of being fined under similar circumstances in other states.

“These statements in the new standards are a way for them to try and preserve profits as much as possible,” she said. “GEO and ICE are so intertwined at this point that they have the same motives.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending