Firearms Owners Against Crime
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
Sunnyvale's law restricting high-capacity gun magazines is constitutional and justified by legitimate efforts to minimize local gun violence, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday.
In a closely watched gun rights showdown, a unanimous three-judge 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected the arguments of groups such as the National Rifle Association, which contends the restrictions violate the Second Amendment and undermine the fundamental interests of gun owners.
"Sunnyvale's interests in promoting public safety and reducing violent crime were substantial and important government interests," 9th Circuit Judge Michael Daly Hawkins wrote for the court.
Gun rights advocates have to date failed in their legal challenge to the ordinance, which threatens criminal prosecution of anyone with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. A San Jose federal judge upheld the law last year, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to put it on hold while the appeal unfolds.
Groups challenging the law can now ask the 9th Circuit to rehear the case with an 11-judge panel, or follow through with their plan to take the issue to the Supreme Court. Foes of the Sunnyvale law have already enlisted former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, who has frequently argued in the high court, for their legal team.
Chuck Michel, attorney for the gun rights groups, pledged to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, calling the ruling a "fundamental misapplication" of Second Amendment legal precedent. He also revealed that organizations plan to file a second legal challenge to the Sunnyvale law within the next week raising new legal arguments.
The stakes could be high, as other California cities, including Mountain View, San Francisco and Los Angeles, have moved to adopt similar regulations. And given that the 9th Circuit shapes law for nine western states, its Sunnyvale ruling is likely to have a much broader reach if it remains intact.
To gun owners, the law is an unconstitutional slap at their right to protect their homes from intruders. To advocates of the law, it is a sensible response to gun violence, such as the tragedies ranging from the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, two years ago to Gian Luigi Ferri's mass shootings at a San Francisco law firm two decades ago.
The 9th Circuit is hearing the Sunnyvale arguments as federal courts across the country are dealing with the fallout from a 2008 Supreme Court decision that strengthened the Second Amendment right to have a firearm for self-defense. Emboldened by that decision, gun rights advocates have challenged state and local regulations in areas such as assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition rounds.
Sunnyvale gun owner Leonard Fyock and other local residents took on Sunnyvale's ammo law, backed by gun rights advocates insisting that millions of Americans own such magazines to protect "hearth and home," as they told the 9th Circuit.
Sunnyvale city leaders defending the law are backed by groups such as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Sunnyvale pushed Measure C after the Sandy Hook shootings, in which 20 children were killed, arguing that such large-capacity magazines are unnecessary for self-defense.