California’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds is still in force. You cannot buy, sell, import, manufacture, or receive one in the state. A federal district judge struck the law down twice, but the Ninth Circuit reversed that ruling in March 2025 and upheld the ban. The challengers have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, and as of early 2026 the petition has been relisted for conference more than 10 times without a decision. One narrow protection is in place: the Ninth Circuit stayed enforcement of the possession provisions, so people who already own these magazines from before the ban or from a brief 2019 window are shielded from prosecution for possession while the Supreme Court decides what to do.
What Counts as a Large-Capacity Magazine
California defines a large-capacity magazine as any ammunition feeding device that can accept more than 10 rounds.1California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 16740 Three things are excluded from that definition: devices permanently altered so they cannot hold more than 10 rounds, .22 caliber tube feeding devices, and tubular magazines in lever-action firearms. If your magazine falls into one of those categories, the ban does not reach it.
Penal Code section 32310 prohibits manufacturing, importing, selling, lending, buying, giving away, or receiving any large-capacity magazine in California.2California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 32310 Since July 1, 2017, mere possession has also been illegal by statute, regardless of when the magazine was acquired. That possession provision is the piece currently paused by the courts. Every other prohibition is active.
What You Can and Cannot Do Right Now
The practical rules while the case is pending:
- You cannot buy, import, manufacture, sell, or receive a large-capacity magazine. These restrictions have been in effect throughout the litigation. No court order has lifted them since the brief 2019 injunction ended.3Supreme Court of the United States. Duncan v. Bonta – Brief in Opposition
- You can possess a magazine you already own if you acquired it before the ban took effect (originally 2000 for sales, 2017 for possession) or during “Freedom Week,” from March 29 through April 5, 2019. The Ninth Circuit’s stay of its mandate protects that possession for now.
- You cannot inherit one. Section 32310(a) prohibits “receiving” a large-capacity magazine, and no exemption exists for inheritance or estate transfers.2California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 32310
- You cannot bring them back if you left. If you lawfully owned magazines before the ban, moved out of California, and later returned, you generally cannot bring them back. The one narrow exception is for people who possessed magazines before January 1, 2000, lawfully took them out of state, and are returning with those same magazines.4Justia Law. California Penal Code 32400-32450
Keeping some evidence of when you purchased your magazines is wise. That timeline is the line between lawful possession and a criminal charge.
How the Case Got Here
The lawsuit challenging the ban, Duncan v. Bonta, has been in federal court since 2017. Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California first struck down the ban in March 2019, issuing a permanent injunction against enforcement of section 32310. For roughly one week, from March 29 through April 5, 2019, the injunction was in effect and Californians could lawfully buy magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Hundreds of thousands of magazines changed hands during that window, which gun owners called “Freedom Week.”5California Rifle & Pistol Association. Moving Forward with Large Capacity Magazine Court Ordered Stay
The Ninth Circuit stayed the injunction on April 5, 2019, and later upheld the ban en banc. The Supreme Court vacated that ruling in 2022 and sent the case back for reconsideration under the new standard from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires firearm regulations to be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.6Supreme Court of the United States. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen Judge Benitez struck the law down a second time in September 2023.
California immediately sought an emergency stay. The Ninth Circuit granted a partial stay that blocked the injunction as to new acquisitions but left the possession provisions unstayed for magazines people already lawfully owned.7United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Duncan v. Bonta – Order Granting Stay Pending Appeal On March 20, 2025, the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc reversed Judge Benitez and held that the ban is consistent with the Second Amendment.8United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Duncan v. Bonta
After the en banc ruling, the plaintiffs asked the Ninth Circuit to stay its mandate as applied to magazines already in people’s possession. California did not oppose, and the court granted the request. As the state told the Supreme Court in its brief: “Due to similar relief granted at prior stages of the case, Section 32310 has not yet taken effect as to those magazines.”3Supreme Court of the United States. Duncan v. Bonta – Brief in Opposition The possession ban has effectively been on ice for the entire life of the lawsuit.
Where the Case Sits at the Supreme Court
The plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari on August 15, 2025. Six amicus briefs were filed in support, including from the Second Amendment Foundation, a coalition of 26 states led by Montana, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation.9Supreme Court of the United States. Docket for 25-198 – Duncan v. Bonta
The case was first distributed for conference in November 2025. As of late March 2026, it has been relisted at least 11 times, with both sides filing supplemental briefs in March 2026. Repeated relisting can mean the justices are waiting on a related case, drafting a dissent from denial, or negotiating whether to take the case. It does not guarantee a grant.
If the Court grants review, the possession stay will likely remain in place while the case is briefed and argued, potentially into the 2026-2027 term. If the Court denies the petition, the Ninth Circuit’s mandate will take effect, the possession stay will dissolve, and section 32310 will become fully enforceable, including the ban on possession. That scenario will force Californians who currently hold these magazines to choose one of the compliance options below.
Penalties
Penalties depend on whether the offense involves trafficking or possession alone.
Manufacturing, importing, selling, lending, buying, or receiving a large-capacity magazine is punishable by up to one year in county jail as a misdemeanor, or by 16 months, two years, or three years in county jail as a felony.2California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 3231010California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 1170 Prosecutors can charge these offenses as either misdemeanors or felonies.
Possession alone is charged as an infraction with a fine of up to $100 per magazine, or as a misdemeanor carrying a fine of up to $100 per magazine, up to one year in county jail, or both. The statute says “per magazine,” so five banned magazines can mean five separate charges.
A separate statute, Penal Code section 32311, bans large-capacity magazine conversion kits, meaning any combination of parts (body, spring, follower, floor plate) that could be assembled into a magazine holding more than 10 rounds. Manufacturing, importing, selling, or receiving a conversion kit is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000, up to six months in county jail, or both.11California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 32311
Compliance Options if the Possession Ban Takes Full Effect
If the Supreme Court denies certiorari or rules for California, the possession ban will take full effect. Section 32310(d) lays out three compliance paths:2California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 32310
- Remove the magazines from the state. They remain your property; you just cannot keep them in California.
- Sell them to a licensed California firearms dealer.
- Surrender them to law enforcement for destruction.
There is a fourth practical option. Permanently modifying a magazine so it cannot hold more than 10 rounds takes it outside the statutory definition entirely. California’s regulations require a rigid block inserted to reduce capacity, with the floor plate permanently epoxied and the block riveted through either the floor plate or the side wall; metal magazines with metal floor plates can alternatively have the floor plate welded shut.12California Office of the Attorney General. California Code of Regulations Title 11 – Assault Weapons and Large-Capacity Magazines Friction-fit blocks and spring-tension solutions do not satisfy the regulation, and a magazine altered that way still counts as a large-capacity magazine.
Who Is Exempt
Penal Code sections 32400 through 32450 exempt specific groups from the ban:4Justia Law. California Penal Code 32400-32450
- Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, and sworn peace officers authorized to carry a firearm in their duties, who can personally purchase and possess these magazines.13California Office of the Attorney General. State Exemptions for Authorized Peace Officers
- Licensed California firearms dealers, in the course of business.
- Armored vehicle companies providing armed cash-transportation services, which can issue magazines to guards for on-duty use. The company, not the individual guard, must own the magazines.
- Licensed dealers and gunsmiths receiving magazines for maintenance, repair, or modification, who must return them to the owner afterward.
- Holders of an import permit under section 32315, in accordance with the permit’s terms.
Standard private security guards are not exempt. The Bureau of Security and Investigative Services has stated that no firearm hardware exemptions exist for typical security licensees. Only guards employed directly by public law enforcement agencies, or guards working for armored vehicle companies, fall within the statutory exceptions.