Huge Second Amendment win! Californians can keep their ‘high-capacity’ magazines – for now


SAN FRANCISCO, CA – For the time being, California gun owners can enjoy a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that disallows enforcement of California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity” magazines.

In 2016, California voters approved a “large-capacity” magazine ban, which meant that gun owners could not be in possession of a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

That law has been contested since its passing, and the courts have seen rulings for and against the ban.

In July of 2017, according to Breitbart, District Court Judge Roger Benitez ruled against the “large-capacity” magazine ban.  That ruling was upheld the following year by the Ninth Circuit.

Benitez again ruled against the ban in March of 2019, and in August 2020, the Ninth Circuit agreed, ruling that the ban was unconstitutional.

However, in November of 2021, the Ninth Circuit held an en banc hearing on the case, meaning all the judges were present for the ruling.

In a split decision, the judges ruled 7-4 in favor of the “large-capacity” magazine ban.

According to, the majority stated that:

“the limitation interferes only minimally with the core right of self-defense, as there is no evidence that anyone ever has been unable to defend his or her home and family due to the lack of a large-capacity magazine; and … the limitation saves lives.”

Also according to, California Attorney General Rob Bonta was pleased with the ruling, calling it “a victory for public safety in California.”

Bonta also “called California’s ban on large-capacity magazines a commonsense way to confront ‘an epidemic’ of gun violence ‘including devastating mass shootings.’”

In a dissenting opinion, Ninth Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay noted that “large-capacity magazines are ‘commonly used’ by Americans for self-defense.”

He added:

“Indeed, these magazines are lawfully owned by millions of people nationwide and come standard on the most popular firearms sold today.” 

Bumatay continued:

“If California’s law applied nationwide, it would require confiscating half of all existing firearms magazines in this country.”

Two other judges joined Bumatay in this opinion, and another judge wrote a different dissenting opinion.

Of the 11 judges on the panel, seven were appointed by Democratic presidents.

Chuck Michel, the California Rifle & Pistol Association’s (CRPA) president and general counsel, spoke of a division on the panel when he discussed the ruling for the ban, saying:

“The panel is bitterly factioned, and the dissenting judges are all suggesting that the Supreme Court needs to take this case to explain how a Second Amendment challenge should be reviewed.”

Shaq, on teaching his kids to respect the police: 'Respect that man putting his life on the line for this country.'

He added:

“We’re disappointed but not surprised that this particular 11-judge panel had the numbers to overturn the lower court decision. 

“But the fight is far from over.”

Indeed, the CRPA was immediately back in the fight.

As reported by the CRPA’s website:

“Plaintiffs, including CRPA, acted quickly and filed a Motion to Stay Mandate which would keep the status quo in place while a Writ of Certiorari [order by which a higher court reviews a lower court decision] is filed with the Supreme Court to appeal the decision of the en banc panel.”

The plaintiffs were successful in their efforts and the Ninth Circuit ruled in their favor.

The ruling read:

“Appellees’ unopposed motion to partially stay issuance of the mandate, Docket No. 192, is GRANTED. 

“The mandate is partially stayed for a period of 150 days from the date of this order. 

“If Appellees file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court during the period of partial stay, the partial stay shall continue until final disposition by the Supreme Court.”

According to the CRPA:

“With this Stay of Mandate granted by the court, it essentially means everything carries on as it has for the past several years. 

“Those individual (sic) who lawfully own or possess magazines holding more than 10 rounds are allowed to keep them while the case is appealed.”

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Meanwhile, the results of California’s “bail reform” underscore the need for law-abiding gun owners to have the ability to defend themselves.  For more on the consequences of “bail reform,” we invite you to continue reading below:

Now California: Police, mayor question why judges released murder suspects with little or no bail

Originally published December 2, 2021

SAN JOSE, CA — Since August, three suspects in two different homicide cases have been released by judges with either little or no bail.

As a result, police officials and even the mayor have gotten upset about the decisions to release murder suspects back to the streets of San Jose.

California’s new bail reform process has made it easier to release suspects. While some blame judges, others blame the law involved.

Last year, the California Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to keep someone in custody just because they cannot afford to pay bail, according to a report by FOX11.

In addition, the report noted:

“Judges are now required to favor pretrial release and only order bail if there is clear and convincing evidence that it is the only way to ensure public safety and make certain that the defendant returns to court for future hearings.

“The defendant’s ability to pay must be taken into account in setting bail.”

In a recent homicide case, two suspects were charged in a fatal shooting on Halloween, but released without bail.

Efrain Anzures, 27,  is charged with murder for what police describe as a hit-and-run road rage incident on Oct. 31, according to a report by NBC Bay Area.

Court documents show Judge Phillip Pennypacker put Anzures on house arrest, according to NBC’s report.

In addition, the judge only imposed a few restrictions, such as the suspect staying away from the victim’s family, submitting to searches and attending drug and alcohol counseling.

Anzures’ alleged accomplice, Alfred Castillo, 26, was also released through the Supervised Own Recognizance Program (SORP).

SORP allows suspects to be released while their cases go through the legal process.

Anzures and Castillo are suspects in the slaying of Isiah Gonzalez. Newsbreak reported:

“Anzures has been charged with murder and a charging enhancement for allegedly using a gun.

“Meanwhile, Castillo has been charged with assault with a deadly weapon for using his car in the alleged crime.

“The shooting happened at around 3:40 p.m. Halloween in the 5200 block of Great Oaks Parkway.

“San Jose police said officers arrived to find a man suffering from at least one gunshot wound. He was taken to a hospital where he died of his injuries.”

In a separate case, another murder suspect was released through SORP.

Margarita Santillan is facing murder charges for a killing on Aug. 11 on Littlewood Lane. She was also placed under SORP by Judge Shelyna Brown, who added a $100,000 bond.

San Jose Police Chief Anthony Mata told NBC that suspects charged with murder or accessory to murder are being released by judges with little or no bail. The chief said their releases pose a serious threat to the community.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Mata, who is a former homicide detective, also said he was “shocked” by the judges’ handling of murder suspects:

“This is the ultimate crime. This is murder. Someone took it upon themselves to kill another individual.

“This is difficult. We can only do so much. But we need help.”

The chief said it is demoralizing to arrest accused killers and then see them back on the streets within a few days.

San Jose Police Asst. Chief Paul Joseph told Newsbreak:

“The judges are probably following, to the best of their belief, what they think the law compels them to do, but if that’s what the law compels them to do, then the law needs to be changed. There’s a problem with the law.”

Even San Jose’s mayor, Sam Liccardo, expressed outrage over the latest release of homicide suspects. He tweeted:

“I appreciate the purpose of bail reform, but releasing a homicide suspect without bail is outrageous.

“The pendulum has swung too far, and it’s our neighborhoods that endure the most crime that suffer as a result.”

Liccardo also told Newsbreak he worries that the community is being put at risk:

“This is just dangerous for everyone and we need the judicial system to be able to understand and appreciate the public safety peril that is created by these decisions.”

Newsbreak reported that Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen echoed Liccardo’s sentiments through a statement:

“People accused of low-level non-violent crimes can be released with appropriate conditions.

“Defendants facing murder charges are a danger the community and a flight risk and should not be released.”

San Jose has had 30 homicides so far this year, with the latest one occurring on Dec. 1.

Legal analyst Steven Clark reviewed the cases of the suspects and told NBC:

“It appears there is a colorable self-defense component in both cases. These people did not have serious records, and they have no history of failure to appear.”

Clark also noted that due to the California Supreme Court’s ruling, he expects to see more murder suspects released on SORP in the future:

“It’s no longer a rubber stamp to keep someone in jail, even though the charges here are extremely serious.”

Clark further noted that two criteria are considered before pretrial release: is a suspect considered safe enough for the community and will that person show up for future court dates?

If the judge feels both are true, Clark said the suspect legally must be granted supervised release:

“Until you’ve been convicted of something, you should be given the opportunity to be considered for some sort of pretrial release otherwise, you have to fight your case in custody while everyone else who has money has to fight their case after posting bail.”

NBC reached out to the Superior Court, but was told comments on specific cases cannot be provided.

The Superior Court, however, released a statement regarding pretrial release of suspects and assured NBC that a judge reviews each case to see if it’s safe to release a suspect with proper supervision:

“Every judge reviewing a case for release is required to give individualized consideration to the person appearing before them, and to consider whether non-monetary or other conditions of release are sufficient to protect both the alleged victim and the public, and to ensure the defendant’s appearance in court.

“Supervised release with conditions, including but not limited to electronic monitoring, is a significant tool in that regard.

“A defendant charged with a serious or violent offense may not be released on other than scheduled bail until a hearing is held in open court.”

Chief Mata said better solutions are needed:

“This isn’t reform. We need to work together to come up with better solutions to keep our community safe and keep those individuals accountable.”

On Wednesday, the San Jose Police Media Relations announced on Twitter it believed a homicide suspect from yet another murder case fled to Mexico.

Police say 41-year-old Oscar Soto, who was in custody in connection to a homicide on Jan. 10, was released via SORP and is believed to have fled to Mexico.

Soto was arrested in connection with shooting a man near the 2300 block of Mammoth Drive in the early morning of Jan. 10, according to a report by KRON4.

The San Jose Police Media Relations suggested in its tweet that dangerous suspects should not be released:

“He was also released on SORP. He is now outstanding and fled the country. Currently believed to be in Mexico.

“This is why dangerous defendants/suspects should not be released on their own recognizance.”


Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
Facebook Follow First
Submit a Correction
Related Posts