BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has submitted an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs in a federal challenge of California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity magazines” in a case known as Duncan v. Bonta.

The brief was filed with the Ninth U.S. District Court of Appeals in San Francisco. SAF’s brief was prepared by attorneys Edward A. Paltzik, Serge Krimnus and Meredith Lloyd with Bochner PLLC. The brief refutes California’s argument that gun powder storage laws relate to the state’s magazine ban.

“California continues to grasp at straws by attempting to defend its magazine ban based on gunpowder storage laws,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, who is also a practicing attorney. “The contention that such laws are somehow analogous to the modern day prohibition of firearm magazines capable of holding more than ten cartridges is, at best, a giant stretch of logic. The state’s reliance on these laws suggests they have no credible justification for defending a ban which has already been declared unconstitutional twice.”

SAF was a plaintiff in an earlier challenge of California’s magazine ban, known as Weise v. Becerra, which was stayed pending the outcome of the Duncan case.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb observed, “California has been fighting tooth and nail to defend an extremist gun control statute that common sense dictates is absurd, as well as unconstitutional, and unquestionably impotent in preventing violent crime. Attorney General Rob Bonta’s contention that gunpowder storage restrictions somehow equate to limiting the number of rounds in a magazine is ridiculous.”

As explained in the amicus brief, California’s statute “burdens the right to self-defense by mandating the use of limited capacity magazines. This unconstitutional statute is applicable only to the mechanism by which ammunition is loaded into a firearm and does not seek to regulate the quality or quantity of stored explosive material.”