The San Francisco-based 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday overturned a lower court ruling that had ruled California’s ban on firearms magazines holding more than 10 rounds to be unconstitutional.

In the case Duncan v. Bonta, the 11-judge panel of the 9^th Circuit ruled that the restrictive ban did not violate the Second Amendment because magazines holding more than 10 rounds falls in line with other historic restrictions that restrict “an especially dangerous feature of semiautomatic firearms—the ability to use a large-capacity magazine—while allowing all other uses of those firearms.”

“Large-capacity magazines are optional accessories to firearms, and firearms operate as intended without a large-capacity magazine,” the ruling stated. “Possession of a large-capacity magazine therefore falls outside the text of the Second Amendment.”

The ruling fall far outside the results of a study recently released by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) that revealed how truly common the devices are throughout the country.

“The Detachable Magazine Report (1990-2021) confirms what NSSF has known—that the national standard for magazine capacity for America’s gun owners is greater than 10 rounds,” the organization stated. “With nearly 1 billion detachable magazines in circulation, for both rifles and pistols, they are unquestionably commonly-owned and commonly-used for lawful firearm use, including recreational target shooting, hunting and self-defense. They are ‘arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment. Detachable magazines are integral to the design of, and necessary for the proper functioning of, today’s modern semi-automatic firearms.”

In its latest ruling, the 9^th Circuit also claimed that the infringement met the second Bruen requirement—proving a historical precedent—when no such precedent exists by basically saying “close is good enough.”

“Even assuming that the text of the Second Amendment encompasses the possession of an optional accessory like a large-capacity magazine, California’s law falls neatly within the Nation’s traditions of protecting innocent persons by prohibiting especially dangerous uses of weapons and by regulating components necessary to the firing of a firearm,” the ruling further stated. “Plaintiffs understate the extent to which our forebears regulated firearms to promote public safety. California’s law is relevantly similar to such historical regulations in both ‘how’ and ‘why’ it burdens the right to armed self-defense. Like those historical laws, California’s law restricts an especially dangerous feature of semiautomatic firearms—the ability to use a large-capacity magazine—while allowing all other uses of those firearms.”

Of course, California’s gun-hating attorney general, Rob Bonta, was thrilled with the ruling.

“This commonsense restriction on how many rounds a gunman can fire before they must pause to reload has been identified as a critical intervention to limit a lone shooter’s capacity to turn shootings into mass casualty attacks,” Bonta said in a press release. “Today’s ruling is an important win—not only in this case, but in our broader efforts to protect California communities from gun violence.”

Before the 9^th Circuit began considering the case, attorneys general from 25 different states filed a brief explaining why the ban was unconstitutional under the Bruen ruling and why the district court decision should be upheld.

“The district court properly concluded that California’s law unconstitutionally restricts the fundamental right to keep and bear common firearm magazines typically possessed for lawful purposes,” the AGs stated in the brief. “This Court should follow the Supreme Court’s mandate from Heller, McDonald and Bruen by affirming the district court based on the text, history and tradition associated with the Second Amendment and magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds.”

Alas, the circuit court chose to ignore that good counsel, striking down the lower court decision and likely sending the mag ban case to the U.S. Supreme Court at some future date.