Back in March of 2019, Southern District of California Judge Roger Benitez ruled that the state’s ban on “high capacity” magazines was unconstitutional. He also enjoined enforcement of the law. There was never any doubt that the state would appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit and that the higher court would, in all likelihood, issue an injunction staying Judge Benitez’s ruling, reinstating enforcement of the law.
All of that happened…but it didn’t happen very quickly. The seven-day period between Benitez’s ruling and the Ninth Circuit’s injunction opened up a window — which came to be known as California Freedom Week — during which residents of the Golden State could legally buy magazines that could hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. And buy them, they did.
According to the Daily Mail, left coasters bought more than a million standard capacity mags during their all-too-brief taste of gun rights liberty, helped along by manufacturers and retailers across the country.
Ruger Firearms announced it was releasing its entire inventory. South Carolina-based Palmetto State Armory announced in a Facebook ad that it was ‘prepared to send a whole lot of freedom to our friends in California,’ but warned of delays due to high demand.
‘The pipeline was open and it was flowing, on all platforms – people showing up (in stores), online – I’m guessing that UPS and FedEx had a field day,’ said Gun Owners of California president Sam Paredes. ‘It was a frenzy.’
He said an estimate of a million magazines ‘seems a little bit low.’
Chuck Michel, an attorney for the National Rifle Association and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, has a photograph of empty racks at a Bass Pro Shops store in Las Vegas that used to hold magazines before Californians flocked to the neighboring state to stock up. California’s more than 2.5 million gun owners together have nearly 20 million guns, many of which can use the extended magazines.
By week’s end, Michel said, ‘you couldn’t get one anywhere, because all that inventory had been diverted to California. That’s probably at least a million magazines, probably approaching two to several hundred thousand people.’
Last week, the en banc Ninth Circuit finally ruled in Duncan v. Bonta, surprising no one by upholding the state’s ban. That still isn’t the end of the matter, as the plaintiffs will be asking for the Supreme Court to take the case. But . . .
If Duncan were to be denied cert, that would mean the terrible Ninth Circuit ruling would go into effect. Thousands of Californians would have to give up millions of their Freedom Week magazines. Inevitably, many of them would refuse.
While otherwise law-abiding and peaceable, they have tasted just a tiny bit of Second Amendment freedom and won’t want to give that up. By refusing, they’d be turned into criminals overnight by the authoritarian California government.
This is what is at stake if SCOTUS denies cert on the lame excuses of “percolation” or “waiting for a circuit split” (that will never come). It’s time to definitively decide hardware cases.
Konstadinos Moros is an Associate Attorney with Michel & Associates, a law firm in Long Beach that regularly represents the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) in its litigation efforts to restore the Second Amendment in California. You can find him on his Twitter handle @MorosKostas. To donate to CRPA or become a member, visit https://crpa.org/.
This post was adapted by SNW from a tweet posted by Konstadinos Moros.
SCOTUS is a pro at drag assing.
“California’s more than 2.5 million gun owners together have nearly 20 million guns, many of which can use the extended magazines.”
No way. Try tripling that estimate and you just might start to approach something closer to the truth. Nearly every gun owner I know here has a couple of pieces registered because of requirements, and at least several more off the books due to lawful reasons such as inheritance, PMF, etc before those options were closed by the Democrats. There are many, many guns here the supposed “experts” can only guess at, but always underestimate. I personally know someone who has two items registered, and two dozen not…and all legal per our state laws, so CA “sees” only two when they look at their books.
Just what the citizens of California voted for and allowing to happen for the last 20+ years. Nothing more…Nothing less.
I didn’t vote for that. And what do you mean by the empty phrase “allowing to happen”?
D, you’re making the ontological mistake of treating “the citizens of California” as if we are all one undifferentiated mass. Are you a closet socialist?
The courts hate us as much as the legislature does.
The only real play is as it has always been “come and take it.”
“This is what is at stake if SCOTUS denies cert on the lame excuses of “percolation” or “waiting for a circuit split” (that will never come).”
I have a queasy feeling the reason for not being granted cert. is that Thomas, et.al, isn’t confident Cony-Barret will vote the way we will want…
https://revolver.news/2025/03/the-case-against-justice-roberts-is-he-owned-by-the-cia/
Dig deeper
I doubt that.
But Geoff if making up such a story makes you feel better then you’re being childish.
You must be new here, may I introduce you to the power of and.
Sorry, but just the sort of mess that Roberts and Barrett love to create.
Education time: In 1833, the US SC decided Barron v Baltimore. The outcome was that the SC decided NONE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS BOUND THE STATES. Again, none of the BoR applied to the states, not the 1st or 2nd or any other. That decision has NEVER BEEN OVERTURNED. Had the US SC follow Art 6 Sec 6 which makes the Constitution, etc the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, this case would never have caused the damage it has to the RIGHT of the People to keep and bear Arms. Never for a moment think the US SC will fix anything. They caused the problems we have.
Art 6 Sec 2 sorry.
The court has been using the 14th amendment over the years to incorporate each, individual constitutionally protected right down to the states.
Should SCOTUS refuse to take the case and the 9th Circuit’s ruling takes effect, I think it will show the true nature of California gun owners. The question will be, just how will they handle it?
Option 1 would be that everyone disposes of their now-illegal magazines in one way or another, saying to the tyrants in California government, in effect, “Thank you sir! May I have another?”
Option 2 would be that very few comply and it will be up to the state to deal with those they manage to catch.
Option 3 would be that those who do not comply decide that enough is enough and those in California government will be removed – forcibly – from office.
I, for one, sincerely hope that Option 3 never comes to pass, but I fear that people are fed up with the tyranny and they’re realizing that the courts are little to no help. When that realization happens, all bets are off.