Washington, D.C. October 20, 2017 — Pride Fund to End Gun Violence – America’s only national LGBTQ political organization focused solely on gun violence prevention – today announced its filing of an amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to support the state’s position that California's large capacity magazine ban be enforced. Pride Fund Joins California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and 63 percent of California voters in support of this proposition.
“Just last year, Pride Fund and the majority of California voters supported Proposition 63, which prohibits the possession of large capacity magazines,” said Jason Lindsay, Executive Director of
Pride Fund. “As an Iraq War veteran, I fully believe that large capacity magazines have no place on American streets. We are disappointed that U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez issued the injunction the NRA requested, but we will fight this tooth-and-nail to see that the will of California voters is respected. We’re proud to sign on as a friend of the court to support Lt. Governor Newsom and California Democratic Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s efforts to make California
safer.”
In 2016, 63% of Californians voted to approve Proposition 63, banning the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Although the majority of Californians supported this commonsense measure to reduce the deadly toll of gun violence, the
NRA intervened and organized a group of plaintiffs to challenge the constitutionality of the law before it could take effect. U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez issued a preliminary injunction, siding with the NRA and temporarily postponing the law.
Large capacity magazines were used in all six of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history, including Las Vegas. When these devices are involved in a mass shooting, it results in more people shot when compared to incidents where large capacity magazines were not used.
Because large capacity magazines reduce the need for the shooter to reload, it deprives potential victims of the opportunity to escape or intervene. In Sandy Hook Elementary School in December, 2012, Adam Lanza used large capacity magazines with the ability to hold 30 rounds
to take the lives of 20 students and six adults. Eleven students escaped while Lanza reloaded his gun.
“The Sandy Hook shooter, the gunman in Arizona who shot former U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the Aurora movie theater shooter, the gunman at Columbine, and the shooter in Las Vegas were all equipped with large capacity magazines,” said Lindsay. “Prohibiting large capacity magazines is a step forward in the effort to reduce the toll of gun violence in America.
This is a commonsense measure that respects the Second Amendment and will save lives. We’re disappointed that the NRA refuses to listen to the people of California and continues to put the profits of gun manufacturers over the safety of the American people. This is one of many occasions that the NRA has intervened in legal processes to trample on the democratic process and enable the continuation of countless mass shootings.”
VIRGINIA DUNCAN et al., vs. XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General of the State of California Background:About the Pride Fund to End Gun Violence On May 17, 2017, residents of San Diego County and the California Rifle & Pistol Association filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Xavier Becerra in the U.S. District Court for Southern
California. Proposition 63’s section 32310(c) determined that possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines (LCM’s) classified as an infraction or misdemeanor in the state of California. The initiative required those who owned these LCMs to sell them to a dealer, or
surrender them to the state. In June of 2017, Judge Benitez ordered the attorney general to not enforce this section of the proposition, reasoning, “[it] burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the mere possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state.” Judge Benitez’s orders to not enforce the law is a preliminary injunction, meaning it is temporary until the case is concluded.