366 F. Supp. 3d 1131
S.D. Cal.2019Background
- Plaintiffs challenged California Penal Code § 32310 (ban on acquiring/possessing detachable magazines that accept >10 rounds, with dispossession requirements) as violating the Second Amendment and as an uncompensated taking.
- The statute (amended by Prop. 63) criminalizes acquisition/import/manufacture and makes possession an infraction/misdemeanor, with options to remove, sell to a dealer, or surrender for destruction.
- The record included state crime statistics, expert reports, and compilations of mass-shooting incidents (e.g., Mother Jones, Mayors/Everytown), which the court found of limited evidentiary weight.
- Plaintiffs argued magazines >10 rounds are common, used for lawful self-defense, and therefore protected under Heller; they also argued the dispossession/forfeiture provisions effect a taking without compensation.
- The State argued historical regulation and public-safety interests (mass-shooting prevention, critical pause, protecting police/public) justify the ban and that intermediate (not strict) scrutiny should apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether magazines >10 rounds are protected "arms" under the Second Amendment | Magazines are necessary components of commonly owned firearms used for lawful self-defense; thus protected under Heller's common-use test | State claimed public-safety exception/historical regulation removes protection | Court: Magazines >10 rounds are "arms" in common use and protected; §32310 fails Heller |
| Whether historical tradition places magazine-capacity limits outside Second Amendment protection | No longstanding tradition of capacity limits; modern capacity limits are recent and not longstanding | State pointed to early-20th-century firing-capacity and machine-gun statutes as historical precedent | Court: Historical record does not show longstanding prohibition of detachable magazine capacity at 10 rounds; historical exception fails |
| Appropriate level of scrutiny and fit of statute to State interests | Complete ban targets core right (self-defense in home) and is severe burden → strict scrutiny; §32310 is not narrowly tailored | State: intermediate scrutiny applies; legislature/ballot measure entitled to deference; reasonable fit based on mass-shooting data and experts | Court: statute targets core right and imposes severe burden → strict scrutiny warranted; fails strict scrutiny; also fails intermediate scrutiny (not a reasonable fit) |
| Adequacy/weight of State's empirical evidence (mass-shooting data) | N/A (plaintiffs attacked evidence reliability) | State relied on studies, expert reports, and compilations to show LCMs increase lethality and that bans reduce harm | Court: State evidence (news compilations, unsworn reports) is thin, often inadmissible or non-persuasive; does not show reasonable fit |
| Whether dispossession/surrender provisions effect an uncompensated taking | Forcible surrender or compelled removal/sale is a physical appropriation (deprivation of possession) requiring compensation | State asserted exercise of police power and nuisance characterization allows dispossession without compensation | Court: dispossession provision forces surrender/destruction → constitutes a physical taking (per se appropriation) and cannot be enforced without compensation |
| Scope of injunction/remedy | N/A | N/A | Court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs, declared §32310 unconstitutional in its entirety, enjoined enforcement, and required notice to law enforcement |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects individual right to possess commonly used arms for self-defense in the home)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (Second Amendment incorporated against the states)
- Teixeira v. County of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670 (9th Cir. 2017) (historical/textual approach to scope of Second Amendment)
- Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014) (analysis of presumptively lawful regulations and core burdens)
- Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2015) (magazine-capacity regulation may implicate core right; level-of-scrutiny analysis in preliminary-injunction context)
- Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027 (2016) (a weapon may not be banned simply because it is dangerous; ‘‘dangerous and unusual’’ test)
- Murr v. Wisconsin, 137 S. Ct. 1933 (2017) (takings analysis: categorical and multi-factor approaches to regulatory takings)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) (permanent physical occupation constitutes a per se taking)