306 F. Supp. 3d 1190
E.D. Cal.2018Background
- California barred sale/transfer/manufacture of magazines holding >10 rounds since 2000 but until 2017 did not ban possession of existing magazines.
- SB 1446 (July 2016) and Proposition 63 (Nov. 2016) amended Cal. Penal Code § 32310 to criminalize possession of large-capacity magazines (LCMs) as of July 1, 2017, with limited compliance options (remove, sell to dealer, or surrender) and penalties for possession.
- Plaintiffs sued April 2017 challenging § 32310 on Second Amendment, takings, vagueness, overbreadth, and equal protection grounds; preliminary injunction was denied earlier by this court.
- Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint adding California takings claim, an equal protection claim based on a prop-use exemption, and vagueness allegations about differences between SB 1446 and Prop 63.
- The court evaluates whether the ban burdens Second Amendment-protected conduct, applies appropriate scrutiny, and considers takings/due process/overbreadth/equal protection doctrines in dismissing the SAC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Second Amendment | LCM possession is protected; ban infringes self-defense rights | Ban regulates a subset of magazines and advances public safety; intermediate scrutiny should apply | Court: LCMs are within scope; intermediate scrutiny applies and ban survives (dismissed) |
| Takings (Fifth/Cal.) | Ban is a taking because owners must surrender or lose beneficial use without compensation | Owners may sell to dealers, remove from state, or permanently modify; no government appropriation | Court: Not a physical or regulatory taking; dismissal granted |
| Vagueness / Due Process | Conflicting texts (SB 1446 vs Prop 63), exemptions and compliance options create vagueness | Later-enacted Prop 63 controls; statutory meaning and compliance paths are sufficiently clear | Court: Statute not unconstitutionally vague; dismissal granted |
| Equal Protection (prop exemption) | Exemption for film/TV prop use irrationally favors industry/actors | Exemption rationally relates to legitimate state interests (safety, economic concerns) | Court: Rational basis applies and exemption is rational; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2015) (framework for evaluating LCM regulations under the Second Amendment)
- Chovan v. United States, 735 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) (two-step inquiry: burden and level of scrutiny)
- Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (magazines >10 rounds in common use; intermediate scrutiny discussion)
- Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017) (upholding assault-weapon/LCM restrictions; legislative deference)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2015) (reasonable fit between assault/LCM bans and public-safety interests)
- District of Columbia v. Heller (Heller I), 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects self-defense in the home)
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) (regulatory takings framework)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) (per se physical taking principles)
- Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (regulatory taking: total deprivation of economically beneficial use)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (multi-factor regulatory takings test)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (overbreadth doctrine largely First Amendment–limited)
- Powell's Books, Inc. v. Kroger, 622 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2010) (overbreadth standard: "substantial amount" of protected conduct)
- Nordyke v. King, 681 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2012) (rational basis review for equal protection when Second Amendment challenge fails)
- Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) (Equal Protection principle: similarly situated persons treated alike)
- Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) (rational basis standard for economic and social legislation)