Duncan v. Becerra

• Decision Date: 14 August 2020
• Docket Number: No. 19-55376,19-55376
• Parties: Virginia DUNCAN ; Richard Lewis; Patrick Lovette; David Marguglio; Christopher Waddell ; California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., a California corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Xavier BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

970 F.3d 1133

Virginia DUNCAN ; Richard Lewis; Patrick Lovette; David Marguglio; Christopher Waddell ; California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., a California corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.Xavier BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-55376

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 2, 2020 Pasadena, California

Filed August 14, 2020

LEE, Circuit Judge:

In the wake of heart-wrenching and highly publicized mass shootings, the state of California barred its citizens from owning so-called "large capacity magazines" (LCMs) that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. But even well-intentioned laws must pass constitutional muster. California's near-categorical ban of LCMs strikes at the core of the Second Amendment — the right to armed self-defense. Armed self-defense is a fundamental right rooted in tradition and the text of the Second Amendment. Indeed, from pre-colonial times to today's post-modern era, the right to defend hearth and home has remained paramount.

California's law imposes a substantial burden on this right to self-defense. The ban makes it criminal for Californians to own magazines that come standard in Glocks, Berettas, and other handguns that are staples of self-defense. Its scope is so sweeping that half of all magazines in America are now unlawful to own in California. Even law-abiding citizens, regardless of their training and track record, must alter or turn over to the state any LCMs that they may have legally owned for years — or face up to a year in jail.

The state of California has latitude in enacting laws to curb the scourge of gun violence, and has done so by imposing waiting periods and many other limitations. But the Second Amendment limits the state's ability to second-guess a citizen's choice of arms if it imposes a substantial burden on her right to self-defense. Many Californians may find solace in the security of a handgun equipped with an LCM: those who live in rural areas where the local sheriff may be miles away, law-abiding citizens trapped in high-crime areas, communities that distrust or depend less on law enforcement, and many more who rely on their firearms to protect themselves and their families. California's almost-blanket ban on LCMs goes too far in substantially burdening the people's right to self-defense. We affirm the district court's summary judgment, and hold that California Penal Code section 32310's ban on LCMs runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

BACKGROUND

A. California Penal Code section 32310 prohibits the people from owning LCMs.

In 2016, California amended California Penal Code section 32310 to enact a wholesale ban on the possession of LCMs¹ by almost everyone, everywhere, in the state of California. See Cal. Penal Code § 32310(c) (2016) (criminalizing "any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired").

But section 32310 has not always been so broad. As originally enacted in 2000, it prohibited the manufacture, importation, and sale of LCMs. See Act of July 19, 1999, ch. 129, 1999 Cal Stat. §§ 3, 3.5 (codified as amended at Cal. Penal Code § 12020(a)(2) (2000) ) (superseded by Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010, ch. 711, 2010 Cal. Stat. § 6 (codified at Cal. Penal Code § 32310 )); see also Cal. Penal Code § 16740 (defining what constitutes an LCM). In other words, California at first did not regulate the possession of LCMs.

Ten years later, California declared unlawfully possessed LCMs to be a nuisance subject to confiscation and destruction. See Cal. Penal Code § 18010(b) ; see also Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010, ch. 711, 2010 Cal. Stat. § 6 (codified at Cal. Penal Code § 32390 ). And in 2013, California further extended the law to prohibit the purchase and receipt of LCMs. See 2013 Cal. Stat. 5299, § 1 (amending Cal. Penal Code § 32310(a) ).

It may seem that after the 2013 amendments, California had completed the circle in regulating LCMs. By then, the state had long since foreclosed the transfer and sale of LCMs. As of 2013, it prohibited their purchase and receipt. But the law still allowed Californians who lawfully bought LCMs well before section 32310's enactment to keep them.

So, in 2016, the California legislature passed Senate Bill 1446 that prohibited possession of LCMs outright after July 1, 2017. See 2016 Cal. Stat. 1549, § 1. A few months later, California voters approved Proposition 63, which subsumed S.B. 1446 and strengthened its prohibitions by providing that possession may constitute a misdemeanor offense punishable by up to a year's worth of jail time. See Cal. Penal Code § 32310(c). The law as amended also requires citizens who own LCMs to remove the magazines from the state, sell them to a firearms dealer, or surrender them to law enforcement for destruction.² Under Penal Code section 16740(a), LCM owners may permanently modify nonconforming magazines to accept ten rounds or fewer, thus removing those magazines from the definition of what constitutes an LCM.

B. Large capacity magazines are prevalent in America.

Millions of Americans across the country own LCMs. One estimate based in part on government data shows that from 1990 to 2015, civilians possessed about 115 million LCMs out of a total of 230 million magazines in circulation. Put another way, half of all magazines in America hold more than ten rounds. Today, LCMs may be lawfully possessed in 41 states and under federal law.

Notably, LCMs are commonly used in many handguns, which the Supreme Court has recognized as the "quintessential self-defense weapon." District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 570, 629, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008). For example, several variants of the Glock pistol — dubbed "America's gun" due to its popularity³ — come standard with a seventeen-round magazine. Almost all Glock models, except for subcompact variants designed for concealed carry, come standard with magazine capacities greater than ten rounds. Another popular handgun used for self-defense is the Beretta Model 92, which entered the market in 1976 and comes standard with a sixteen-round magazine. Indeed, many popular handguns commonly used for self-defense are typically sold with LCMs.⁴

C. Procedural history.

Virginia Duncan and other plaintiffs, who lawfully acquired LCMs or represent those who do (collectively, the "Owners"), brought a constitutional challenge to California Penal Code section 32310. Two days before the possession ban was to take effect, the district court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the law. On appeal, this court affirmed. See Duncan v. Becerra , 742 F. App'x 218, 221–22 (9th Cir. 2018).

While the interlocutory appeal was pending, the Owners filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court issued an order granting the Owners' motion, concluding that section 32310 violates the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause.

On the Second Amendment claim, the court rested its extensive decision on three independent holdings. First, it concluded that section 32310 did not satisfy the "simple Heller test," which queries whether the firearm or firearm component is commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Central to the court's analysis were separate reports by two expert witnesses, James Curcuruto and Stephen Helsley. The Curcuruto report concluded that "[t]here are at least one hundred million magazines of a capacity of more than ten rounds in possession of American citizens, commonly used for various lawful purposes." The Helsley report echoed Curcuruto's findings, noting that after four decades of sales, "millions of semiautomatic pistols with a magazine capacity of more than ten rounds and likely multiple millions of magazines" are in circulation in the United States. The court thus found that "[m]illions of ammunition magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds are in common use by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense."

Second, the court held that section 32310 fails under strict scrutiny for lack of narrow tailoring. The court found section 32310's complete prohibition on possession by nearly everyone, everywhere, to be the hallmark of a sloppy fit. Finally, the district court held that, even though it believed intermediate scrutiny was decidedly "the wrong standard" to apply, section 32310 still fails under this more lenient standard because the statute was not a reasonable fit to the important public safety interests that it was enacted to serve. As for the Fifth Amendment claim, the court found that section 32310 effectuates an unconstitutional taking.

Based on these conclusions, the district court found no genuine dispute of material fact that section 32310 violates the Second and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and ordered summary judgment for the Owners. California timely appealed.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. See Devereaux v. Abbey , 263 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).

ANALYSIS

The state of California⁵ argues that the district court erred by granting summary judgment for the Owners. We disagree with the government's position, and we affirm. California Penal Code section 32310 severely burdens the core of the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. The statute is a poor means to accomplish the state's interests and cannot survive strict scrutiny. But even if we applied intermediate scrutiny, the law would still fail.⁶

I. The Second Amendment is a fundamental right rooted in both text and tradition.

The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." U.S. Const. amend. II. In 2008, the...