Duncan v. Becerra, 265 F. Supp. 3d 1106

Background

Plaintiffs (two veterans and the California Rifle & Pistol Association) challenge Prop. 63 amendments to Cal. Penal Code § 32310(c)–(d), which (starting July 1, 2017) criminalize possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and require owners either to remove them from the state, sell to a licensed dealer, or surrender them for destruction.
Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of the dispossession and criminalization provisions pending final adjudication of Second Amendment and Takings Clause claims.
The State defends the law as addressing public safety, law‑enforcement safety, and crime prevention; it submitted expert declarations and documentary exhibits arguing large‑capacity magazines (LCMs) facilitate mass shootings.
The court found the statutory scheme complex and confusing, raising due‑process notice concerns, and found significant gaps and weaknesses in the State’s evidentiary record supporting a reasonable fit between the ban/dispossession requirement and the asserted public‑safety objectives.
The court concluded plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on both (1) their core Second Amendment claim (magazines are ‘‘arms’’ and the ban burdens core self‑defense rights) and (2) a governmental takings claim (forced physical surrender/destruction is a per se taking), and granted a statewide preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of § 32310(c)–(d).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 32310(c)–(d) infringes the Second Amendment by criminalizing possession of LCMs	The ban burdens the core Second Amendment right to arm for self‑defense and militia preparedness; magazines are ‘‘arms’’ or closely related to them	The law is a permissible regulation to protect public safety and prevent harms associated with mass shootings; intermediate scrutiny should apply and be satisfied	Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed; magazines are protected, ban hits core self‑defense, and State’s record fails to show a reasonable fit; injunction granted
Appropriate level of scrutiny for magazine restrictions	Plaintiffs: restriction implicates the core right and warrants heightened review; Heller’s common‑use test is dispositive	State: Ninth Circuit intermediate‑scrutiny framework applies and should be satisfied on the record	Court: Although intermediate scrutiny is the governing framework in this circuit, under that test the State failed to show a reasonable fit on the preliminary record; Heller’s simple common‑use inquiry also problematic for the statute
Whether dispossession provisions constitute a taking requiring compensation	Plaintiffs: forced surrender/destruction (physical appropriation) is a per se or compensable taking under Loretto/Horne and Murr factors	State: dispossession is a police‑power nuisance regulation not a compensable taking	Court: Likely success on takings claim — forced physical surrender/destruction is a taking requiring compensation; injunction appropriate to prevent irreparable harm
Irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest for preliminary relief	Plaintiffs: loss of core constitutional rights and permanent loss of property/peace of mind constitute irreparable harm; public interest favors protecting constitutional rights	State: public safety interests favor enforcing the new law; some hardship from injunction	Court: Irreparable harm shown; balance and public interest favor plaintiffs; injunction warranted

Key Cases Cited

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Second Amendment protects individual right to possess firearms for self‑defense)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (Second Amendment incorporated against the States)
Miller v. United States, 307 U.S. 174 (Second Amendment protects arms with reasonable relationship to militia use)
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (physical occupation is a per se taking)
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (total regulatory takings require compensation)
Murr v. Wisconsin, 137 S. Ct. 1933 (framework for regulatory takings factors)
Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 135 S. Ct. 2419 (physical appropriation of property is a per se taking)
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary‑injunction standard)
Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991 (Ninth Circuit upholding an LCM possession restriction under intermediate scrutiny on a fuller record)
Silvester v. Harris, 843 F.3d 816 (Ninth Circuit intermediate‑scrutiny framework for Second Amendment challenges)
Chovan v. United States, 735 F.3d 1127 (framework for burden/scutiny analysis in Second Amendment cases)
Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 829 F. Supp. 2d 867 (recognizing Second Amendment implications and evidentiary considerations in injunction context)
Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 (due‑process fair‑notice vagueness principle)
United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (vagueness and fair notice)