I would have to look it up but there are studies that show that states with mag capacity bans have 'rampages' with lower casualty counts than states without.
This is what judge Benitez wrote in his
Duncan v Bonta ruling regarding mass shooting -
https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf
Few would say that a 100 or 50-round rifle magazine in the hands of a murderer is a good idea. Yet, the “solution” for preventing a mass shooting exacts a high toll on the everyday freedom of ordinary law-abiding citizens. Many individual robberies, rapes, and shootings are not prevented by the State. Unless a law-abiding individual has a firearm for his or her own defense, the police typically arrive after it is too late ... victim, nevertheless, is dead, or raped, or robbed, or traumatized (Page 7)
... The Second Amendment protects the would-be American victim’s freedom and liberty to take matters into one’s own hands and protect one’s self and family until help arrives. (Page 8)
Some say that the use of “large capacity magazines” increases the lethality of gun violence. They point out that when large capacity magazines are used in mass shootings, more shots are fired, more people are wounded, and more wounds are fatal than in other mass shootings ... Nothing in the Second Amendment makes lethality a factor to consider because a gun’s lethality, or dangerousness, is assumed (Page 21)
If the “too lethal” standard is followed to its logical conclusion, the government may dictate in the future that a magazine of eight rounds is too lethal. And after that, it may dictate that a gun with a magazine holding three rounds is too lethal since a person usually fires only 2.2 rounds in self-defense. This stepped-down approach may continue until the time comes when government declares that only guns holding a single round are sufficiently lacking in lethality. (Page 22)
If preventing mass shootings is the state’s interest, it is not at all clear that it would be compelling since such events are exceedingly rare. If the state’s interest is in forcing a “pause” during a mass shooting for a shooter to be apprehended, those events are even more rare.
The State’s theoretical and empirical evidence is not persuasive. Why 10 rounds as a limit? The State has no answer. Why is there no thought given to possession in and around a home? It is inconclusive at best ... Mass shootings are tragic. But they are rare events. And of these rare events, many are committed without large capacity magazines. (Page 46-47)
The findings from the Mayors Against Illegal Guns survey 2009-2013 ... “To sum up, of the 92 mass killings occurring across the 50 states between 2013 and 2009, only ten occurred in California. Of those ten, the criminalization and dispossession requirements of § 32310 would have had no effect on eight of the shootings, and only marginal good effects had it been in effect at the time of the remaining two shootings. On this evidence, § 32310 is not a reasonable fit. It hardly fits at all. It appears on this record to be a haphazard solution likely to have no effect on an exceedingly rare problem, while at the same time burdening the Constitutional rights of many other California law-abiding responsible citizen-owners of gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds.” (Page 48)
... the state attempts to bolster the data from the Mayors’ survey with a Mother Jones Magazine 36-year survey of mass shootings from 1982 to 2018. The Mother Jones findings are even less convincing ... 98 mass shooting events in the last 36 years ... 17 took place in California ... prohibition on magazines holding more than 10 rounds would have done nothing to keep a shooter from shooting more than 10 rounds. That is because normally the perpetrator brings multiple weapons. (Page 49)
The more weapons, the greater the firepower and the greater the potential for casualties. In 14 of the 17 California mass shooting events, multiple weapons were brought. For example, in the 1988 mass shooting event in Sunnyvale, the shooter brought two pistols, two revolvers, two shotguns, and a bolt action rifle (all obtained legally). No large capacity magazines were used. (Page 50)
California’s large capacity magazine prohibition also had no effect on the three single weapon mass shooting events. In the Fresno event in April 2017, a revolver was used. For those unschooled on firearms, a revolver does not use a magazine of any size. In the next mass shooting event in Oakland in April 2012, the shooter used a pistol with four California-legal 10-round magazines. In the third mass shooting event in Goleta in January 2006, the shooter did use a pistol with a 15-round magazine. However, the shooter resided in New Mexico. She purchased the firearm and its 15-round magazine legally in New Mexico. She then traveled into California to Goleta to the postal facility where she had been employed three years prior. By 2006, California already prohibited a person from bringing into the state a large capacity magazine, but it did not prevent the Goleta tragedy from taking place. (Page 50)
Santa Monica June 2013 event where the shooter was armed with multiple firearms and 40 large-capacity magazines ... AR-15 and the illegal magazines may have been illegally imported from outside of California. Receiving and importing magazines holding any more than 10 rounds was already unlawful under California law at the time ... criminalizing possession of magazines holding any more than 10 rounds likely would not have provided any additional protection from gun violence for citizens or police officers. Nor would it have prevented the crime.
The AG’s evidence demonstrates that ... criminalization of large capacity magazine acquisition and possession has had no effect on reducing the number of shots a perpetrator can fire. (Page 51)
Where did this idea come from, the idea that a court is required to fully credit evidence only “reasonably believed to be relevant?” ... This is federal court. The Attorney General has submitted two unofficial surveys to prove mass shootings are a problem made worse by firearm magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
Do the surveys pass the Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 403 test for relevance? Yes.
Are the surveys admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 802? No.
They are double or triple hearsay. No foundation has been laid. No authentication attempted.
Are they reliable? No.
Are they anything more than a selected compilation of news articles – articles which are themselves inadmissible? No.
Are the compilers likely to be biased? Yes. (Page 52-53)
This case is about a muscular constitutional right and whether a state can impinge and imprison its citizens for exercising that right. This case is about whether a state objective is possibly important enough to justify the impingement. (Page 54)
No case has held that intermediate scrutiny would permit a state to impinge even slightly on the Second Amendment right by employing a known failed experiment. Congress tried for a decade the nationwide experiment of prohibiting large capacity magazines. It failed. California has continued the failed experiment for another decade and now suggests that it may continue to do so ad infinitum without demonstrating success. That makes no sense. (Page 59)
Ten years of a federal ban on large-capacity magazines did not stop mass shootings nationally. Twenty years of a California ban on large capacity magazines have not stopped mass shootings in California. (Page 62)
The reason for the adoption of the Second Amendment was to protect the citizens of the new nation from the power of an oppressive state ... With Colonists still hurting from the wounds of war, the Second Amendment guaranteed the rights of new American citizens to protect themselves from oppressors foreign and domestic. So, now it is ironic that the State whittles away at the right of its citizens to defend themselves from the possible oppression of their State. (Page 62)
The State relies on expert witness, Professor Louis Klarevas. Professor Klarevas says that banning large capacity magazines will reduce violence and force shooters to take a critical pause. However ... Tucson shooting would have likely still happened with a ban on high capacity magazines ... Moreover, even if Loughner showed up with a six-bullet revolver as opposed to a 30-round Glock, he likely still would have shot people. What’s more, a person set on inflicting mass casualties will get around any clip prohibitions by having additional clips on his person (as Loughner did anyway) or by carrying more than one fully loaded weapon. (Page 65)
The State argues that smaller magazines create a “critical pause” in the shooting of a mass killer. “The prohibition of LCMs helps create a “critical pause” that has been proven to give victims an opportunity to hide, escape, or disable a shooter.” This may be the case for attackers. On the other hand, from the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a “lethal pause,” as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack.
In other words, the re-loading “pause” the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter, also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine. The need to re-load and the lengthy pause that comes with banning all but small-capacity magazines is especially unforgiving for victims who are disabled, or who have arthritis, or who are trying to hold a phone in their off-hand while attempting to call for police help.
The good that a re-loading pause might do in the extremely rare mass shooting incident is vastly outweighed by the harm visited on manifold law-abiding, citizen-victims who must also pause while under attack. This blanket ban without any tailoring to these types of needs goes to show § 32310’s lack of reasonable fit. (Page 74)
CONCLUSION - Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “arms.” California Penal Code Section 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state ... California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined. (Page 84)
