“Large-Capacity Magazines Are Neither ‘Arms’ Nor Protected Accessories. We first examine ‘whether the plain text of the Second Amendment protects [Plaintiffs’] proposed course of conduct.’ Bruen, 597 U.S. at 32. Plaintiffs assert that their proposed conduct—possessing large-capacity magazines— implicates the text of the Second Amendment because, in their view, large-capacity magazines are arms commonly chosen for the purpose of self-defense. Defendant raises several distinct arguments to the contrary: large-capacity magazines are not ‘Arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment; they are not in common use for self-defense; they are most useful in military service; and they are dangerous and unusual.” – Justice Susan P. Graber, from the Ninth Circuit Court’s absurd majority opinion in Duncan v. Bonta, decided on March 20, 2025, upholding Califonia’s 25-year-old ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds. (Now pending appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.)
The Editors’ Quote of the Day:
