The California Rifle and Pistol Association and the National Rifle Association have filed a second lawsuit challenging Golden State gun laws that restrict ammunition magazines, contending that the ban on so-called “high capacity magazines” is unconstitutional.
The action, filed in federal district court in San Diego, comes in the wake of an earlier legal action that challenges the ban on sales of semi-auto sport/utility rifles equipped with so-called “bullet buttons.” That device was acceptable for several years, but the law was changed in reaction to the San Bernardino terrorist attack, which the Los Angeles Times preferred to call a “mass shooting.”
Passage of Proposition 63 last November provided the magazine ban.
However, the gun groups are claiming that this amounts to an unconstitutional taking of private property without compensation.
Two recent high-profile shootings in California might help erode claims that banning magazines that hold more than ten rounds will help reduce violence. In another shooting in San Bernardino, and a separate incident in Fresno put the lie to that argument. In both cases, the gunmen used revolvers and were able to reload quickly.
“Banning magazines over 10 rounds is no more likely to reduce criminal abuse of guns than banning high horsepower engines is likely to reduce criminal abuse of automobiles,” the plaintiffs contend in their lawsuit.
In a prepared statement Chris Cox, head of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, asserted, “Legislators in California routinely enact laws that only affect the law-abiding and do nothing to enhance public safety. This lawsuit, and others that will follow, is an effort to ensure the rights of law-abiding gun owners are respected in California.”
When PoliceOne.com conducted a survey of more than 15,000 law enforcement professionals four years ago, 95 percent of the respondents said banning the manufacture and sale of magazines that hold more than ten rounds would not reduce violent crime.