A lawsuit filed in San Diego federal court Wednesday by the state affiliate of the National Rifle Association is challenging a California law passed last year that makes it illegal to own gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

The complaint, filed by the California Rifle and Pistol Association and five county residents, is the second in what the attorneys describe as “a series of long and carefully planned lawsuits challenging the package of gun bans passed last year that have collectively become known as ‘gunmageddon’ among gun owners.” The laws, including Proposition 63 at issue here, were passed in the wake of the San Bernardino mass shooting.

With President Donald Trump in the White House and a conservative majority returned to the U.S. Supreme Court, gun rights advocates see the timing as ripe for such legal challenges.

The lawsuit alleges the law violates the constitutional rights of gun owners who have legally come into possession of such magazines. Three of the plaintiffs say they want the large-capacity magazines for self defense in the home, while two others are military veterans who say they already own the pieces and should not have to give them up.


“The reason for the popularity of these magazines is straightforward: In a confrontation with a violent attacker, having enough ammunition can be the difference between life and death,” the lawsuit states.

A 2000 state law made it illegal to manufacture, sell, import or transfer such magazines. A component of Proposition 63, passed in November, made it illegal to own such magazines beginning July 1. The penalty is an infraction punishable by a maximum fine of $100 and a year in jail.

Current owners are instructed to remove the magazine to another state where possession is legal, sell the magazine to a licensed firearms dealer, or turn it in to law enforcement for destruction.

Long Beach-based NRA attorney Chuck Michel, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the ban does nothing to promote public safety.


“Banning magazines over ten rounds is no more likely to reduce criminal abuse of guns than banning high horsepower engines is likely to reduce criminal abuse of automobiles,” he states in the lawsuit.

Michel is also the attorney who has brought the biggest gun case to the county in recent years: Peruta v. California. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to hear the case, which argues law-abiding citizens should be able to carry concealed weapons without stating a specific threat.

Griffin Dix, co-chair of the Oakland chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said Thursday that history has shown that such laws regulating firearms have prevailed in court.

“I think many courts have found those types of regulations to be constitutional,” Dix said, citing landmark rulings that have provided for “a whole series of ways under the Second Amendment you can regulate firearms, and that would include magazines” and how lethal the guns are.


Dix added that reducing the size of magazines is especially important because it forces would-be mass shooters to pause and reload more frequently.

“Measures like that one can affect public safety and can save lives,” he said.

The NRA affiliate filed its first lawsuit against the new gun laws on April 24 in Orange County, challenging a prohibition on the sale of semiautomatic rifles equipped with “bullet buttons” that make it easy to quickly remove and replace magazines.

Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, said in response that the strengthened gun controls would likely hold up in the courts.


“Background checks and other guns laws California has enacted have saved lives and are key in making our mortality rate one of the lowest in the nation,” De León said in a statement to the Los Angeles Times. “I am confident that the courts will reject the NRA’s arguments, just as our voters did in November, and uphold California’s right to implement common-sense policies to protect its people.”


kristina.davis@sduniontribune.com

Twitter: @kristinadavis