By popular vote, Proposition 63 was passed on November 9, 2016, amending Penal Code § 32310 (to be effective July 1, 2017), outlawing (with limited exceptions) “large capacity magazines.” A large capacity magazine is one that holds more than ten rounds of ammunition.  In 2017, a federal district court judge found Section 32310 to be an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment (see Duncan v. Becerra (June 29, 2017) 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101549), putting implementation of the amended Section 32310 on hold.  This lower court ruling was initially upheld by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal in a split, two-to-one decision.  (Duncan v. Becerra (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2020) 970 F.3rd 1133.)  Well, if you thought we were done with this topic, you were wrong.  An en banc panel (eleven justices) of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal just reversed itself, finding Pen. Code § 32310 to be constitutional and enforceable.  In Duncan v. Bonta (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2021) __ F.4th __ [2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 35256], an 8-to-3 decision, the Court used what it referred to as an “intermediate scrutiny” test (requiring only that the statute show a “reasonable fit with an important governmental interest,” while “leav(ing) open ample alternative means of exercising that right”) in holding that California’s large capacity magazine restrictions do not violate the Second Amendment, the Takings Clause, nor the Due Process Clause.  If you don’t know what the “Takings Clause” refers to, I’ll tell you.  Simply put, under the Fifth Amendment, a governmental agency is prohibited from taking one’s private property without just compensation.  “Due process,” of course, requires that everyone be treated with “fundamental fairness,” typically referring to the necessity of an evidentiary court hearing prior to depriving a person of his or her freedom, his or her property, or generally, his or her constitutional rights.  In its decision, the Ninth Circuit balanced the minimal intrusion incurred by the state taking away our large capacity magazines with the improper use of those magazines sometimes made by unscrupulous people.  In doing so, the Court cited some interesting statistics.  For instance, the Court noted that in the last half century, large capacity magazines have been used in about three-quarters of gun massacres with 10 or more deaths, and in 100% of gun massacres with 20 or more deaths. It was also noted that more than twice as many people have been killed or injured in mass shootings that involved a large capacity magazine as compared with mass shootings that involved a smaller capacity magazine.  The Court balanced this with the countervailing fact that there is no evidence to the effect that the lack of a large capacity magazine has ever prevented anyone from defending his or her home and family.  (I’m not sure how you would prove this, but that’s what the Court said.)  Given the above mass shooting statistics, outlawing large capacity magazines arguably saves lives.  (Don’t shoot [no pun intended] the messenger.  I’m just telling you what the Court said.) This case decision is long and complicated; 225 pages, with 52 footnotes, with all sorts of concurring and dissenting opinions.  So if you’re really into gun rights and the Second Amendment, and this decision really bothers you, I suggest you read the whole thing.  What will be interesting is whether this case goes up to the U.S. Supreme Court.