On March 20, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California’s ban on high-capacity magazines in Duncan v. Bonta, a case that’s been a legal ping-pong match for years. The law caps magazines at 10 rounds, a restriction gun control advocates cheer and Second Amendment supporters decry as unconstitutional. The court’s decision keeps the ban alive, but this fight’s far from settled.
This saga started in 2017 when District Judge Roger Benitez tossed out the ban, calling it a violation of the Second Amendment. That win for gun owners didn’t last—by 2021, the Ninth Circuit, in a 7-4 en banc ruling, flipped the script and upheld the law. Benitez struck it down again in 2023, but the Ninth Circuit hit pause with a stay. Now, in 2025, they’ve doubled down, affirming the ban once more.
The Ninth Circuit leaned on a legal test called intermediate scrutiny. In plain English, this means the government has to prove the law serves an important goal and isn’t overkill. Here, the goal is curbing gun violence. The court cited stats: high-capacity magazines—those holding more than 10 rounds—showed up in 75% of mass shootings with 10+ deaths over five decades, and every single one with 20+ (AP News). The majority says the ban could save lives without gutting self-defense rights.
Not everyone’s buying it. Judge Lawrence VanDyke dissented hard, even dropping a video—a bold move for a judge. In it, he shows how the ban hampers law-abiding folks while letting criminals slide. His point? The majority’s ruling twists the Constitution to fit a safety agenda.
This could land in the Supreme Court’s lap soon. With its conservative tilt and recent pro-Second Amendment vibes, the court might jump at the chance to weigh in—especially with VanDyke’s dissent stirring the pot. If they take it, the ban’s fate could flip, leaving California gun owners holding their breath.
This isn’t just about magazines—it’s a tug-of-war between safety and rights. The court’s got data on its side, but Second Amendment fans argue the Constitution doesn’t bow to numbers. As one X post put it, “Shall not be infringed isn’t a suggestion.” Love it or hate it, this ruling keeps the debate blazing.
