Employing the methodology announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), the en banc court concluded that California’s law comported with the Second Amendment for two independent reasons. First, the text of the Second Amendment does not encompass the right to possess large-capacity magazines because large-capacity magazines are neither “arms” nor protected accessories. Second, even assuming that the text of the Second Amendment encompasses the possession of optional accessories like large-capacity magazines, California’s ban on large-capacity magazines falls within the Nation’s tradition of protecting innocent persons by prohibiting especially dangerous uses of weapons and by regulating components necessary to the firing of a firearm.
Accordingly, the en banc court remanded this case to the district court with the instruction to enter judgment in favor of the California Attorney General.
![[mg]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/036.gif "Machine Gun [mg]")
