Case: 19-55376, 04/01/2021, ID: 12061300, DktEntry: 145, Page 1 of 23 No. 19-55376 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VIRGINIA DUNCAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, V. XAVIER BECERRA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, No. 17-cv-1017-BEN-JLB BRIEF OF TWENTY-TWO STATES AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES ON EN BANC REHEARING Jeff Landry Mark Brnovich Louisiana Attorney General Arizona Attorney General Elizabeth B. Murrill Joseph A. Kanefield Solicitor General Chief Deputy & Chief of Staff Josiah Kollmeyer Brunn W. Roysden III Assistant Solicitor General Solicitor General Louisiana Department of Justice Michael S. Catlett 1885 N. Third Street Deputy Solicitor General Baton Rouge, LA 70804 Counsel of Record (225) 205-8009 OFFICE OF THE ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL 2005 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004 (602) 542-7751 April 1, 2021 [email protected] Counsel for Amici States (Additional counsel listed after signature block) Case: 19-55376, 04/01/2021, ID: 12061300, DktEntry: 145, Page 2 of 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .............................................................................. 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................ 3 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 4 I. California’s Ban On The Affected Magazines Should Not Be Subject To Any Interest Balancing Test. ..................................................................... 4 A. The Correct Test Under Heller. ................................................................. 4 B. An Interest Balancing Approach Would Be Inconsistent With Heller And Its Progeny. .............................................................................6 C. An Interest Balancing Approach Would Reduce Clarity In The Law And Promote Subjectivity. ................................................................ 9 II. The Act Is Unconstitutional Because It Is A Categorical Ban On “Arms” Commonly Used By Law-Abiding Citizens For Lawful Purposes. ....................................................................................................... 12 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 16 i Case: 19-55376, 04/01/2021, ID: 12061300, DktEntry: 145, Page 3 of 23 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Ass’n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs Inc. v. Att’y Gen. of N.J., 910 F.3d 106 (3d. Cir. 2018) ..................................................................................8 Ass’n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs Inc. v. Att’y Gen. of N.J., 974 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2020) ...................................................................... 8, 14, 15 Binderup v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 836 F.3d 336 (3d Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................8 Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027 (2016) ................................................................................ 7, 8, 12 District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) ..................................................................................... passim Duncan v. Becerra, 265 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (S.D. Cal. 2017) ............................................................9, 10 Duncan v. Becerra, 970 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................10 Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2015)................................................................................13 Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................8, 14 Jackson v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014)................................................................................14 Kachalsky v. Cty. of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012) ...............................................................................9, 16 Luis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1083 (2016) .........................................................................................13 Mance v. Sessions, 896 F.3d 390 (5th Cir. 2018)..................................................................................8 McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) ..................................................................................... passim Ramirez v. Massachusetts, 94 N.E.3d 809 (Mass. 2018) ..................................................................................7 ii Case: 19-55376, 04/01/2021, ID: 12061300, DktEntry: 145, Page 4 of 23 Silvester v. Harris, 843 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 2016)..................................................................................6 United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) .....................................................................................9 United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) .............................................................................................11 Young v. Hawaii, —F.3d—, No. 12-17808, 2021 WL 1114180 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2021) ..............13 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U.S. Const. amend. II ................................................................................................. 4 OTHER AUTHORITIES Daniel Peabody, Target Discrimination: Protecting the Second Amendment Rights of Women and Minorities, 48 Ariz. St. L.J. 883 (2016) ..................................................................................10 iii Case: 19-55376, 04/01/2021, ID: 12061300, DktEntry: 145, Page 5 of 23 INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE This brief is filed on behalf of the states of Arizona, Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming (the “Amici States”). The undersigned are their respective states’ chief law enforcement or chief legal officers and have authority to file briefs on behalf of the states they represent. The Amici States through their Attorneys General have a unique perspective that will aid the en banc Court.1 First, the Attorneys General have experience protecting public safety and citizen interests in states where the affected magazines are lawfully possessed and used. The Amici States the Attorneys General serve are among the forty-one states that permit the standard, eleven plus capacity magazines that California has banned (the “Affected Magazines”) and have advanced their compelling interests in promoting public safety, preventing crime, and reducing criminal firearm violence without a magazine ban such as the one here. The experience in other states shows that the Affected Magazines are common to the point of ubiquity among law-abiding gun owners and their use 1 The Amici States submit this brief solely as amici curiae. The undersigned certifies that no parties’ counsel authored this brief, and no person or party other than the undersigned Attorneys General or their offices made a monetary contribution to the brief’s preparation or submission. 1 Case: 19-55376, 04/01/2021, ID: 12061300, DktEntry: 145, Page 6 of 23 promotes public safety. Calling the Affected Magazines “large-capacity” is a misnomer—they often hold only in the range of eleven to fifteen rounds (in no way a large absolute number) and come standard with many of the most popular firearms. There is nothing sinister about citizens bearing the Affected Magazines. Law-abiding citizens bearing the Affected Magazines with lawful firearms benefits public safety, counter-balances the threat of illegal gun violence, and helps make our streets safer. The Amici States believe that in holding California Penal Code 32310 unconstitutional (“the Act”) the Court correctly applied the U.S. Constitution, thereby safeguarding the Second Amendment rights of millions of citizens. The Attorneys General submit this brief on behalf of the Amici States they serve to provide their unique perspective on these constitutional questions and further protect the critical rights at issue, including the rights and interests of their own citizens. The Amici States join together on this brief not merely because they disagree with California’s policy choice, but because the challenged law represents a policy choice that is foreclosed by the Second Amendment. States may enact reasonable firearm regulations that do not categorically ban common arms core to the Second Amendment, but the challenged law fails as it is prohibitive rather than regulatory. California should not be allowed to invade its own citizens’ 2 Case: 19-55376, 04/01/2021, ID: 12061300, DktEntry: 145, Page 7 of 23 constitutional rights, and this Court should not imperil the rights of citizens in this Circuit and other states with its analysis. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Amici States urge the Court to affirm the trial court’s decision that the California law banning magazines carrying more than ten rounds of ammunition violates the Second Amendment. In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a balancing approach to determine the constitutionality on an outright ban of firearms protected under the Second Amendment. Instead, the Court held that a ban on firearms protected