Back in 2013, the city of Los Angeles’s city council proposed an ordinance banning the possession of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds (so-called “large-capacity” magazines). Unfortunately, on Tuesday, July 28, 2015, after a two year delay, the city council unanimously passed an amended version of this useless ordinance and sent it to the Mayor for his signature, which the Mayor has indicated he is eager to provide.
This ordinance will not prevent violent crime or mass shootings, but it does limit the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners who choose these magazines to defend themselves and their families. As most gun owners already know, magazines holding more than ten rounds are standard equipment for many popular pistols and rifles, especially those that are selected for defensive purposes. These standard capacity magazines are possessed by millions of law-abiding Americans for a variety of lawful purposes, including self-defense.
If signed into law, people who legally possess magazines over 10 rounds have a 60-day grace period to sell those magazines, remove the magazines from the city, or turn them over to Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). Unlike California’s magazine law, individuals currently in lawful possession of these magazines will not be protected by a “grandfather” clause. The ordinance effectively amounts to confiscation because the magazines must either be turned-in or removed from within city limits. Either option obviously eliminates the inherent value in these magazines as tools for self-defense.
Sunnyvale and San Francisco have already adopted similar ordinances, and both of those ordinances have been challenged in court. The NRA supported case against the Sunnyvale ordinance is currently awaiting an appeal after the Ninth Circuit ruled against an attempt to prevent the ordinance from going into effect.
These ordinances give insight into what anti-gun activists will pursue if given the opportunity. Law abiding citizens who are in compliance with California’s already burdensome gun laws are not a public safety threat, yet Sunnyvale, San Francisco, and now Los Angeles are seeking to turn the law-abiding into criminals one step at a time. While court battles against these ordinances continue, the best option for gun owners is to ensure that their elected representatives, including those at the local level, understand that ineffective, ideologically-driven restrictions on our Second Amendment rights have consequences at the ballot box.
Los Angeles City Council Targets Law-Abiding With Magazine Ban
Friday, July 31, 2015
Thursday, May 14, 2026
On the night of May 14th, Governor Spanberger once again proved she has no concern for the 2nd Amendment by signing SB749/HB217 - legislation that bans certain semi-automatic firearms, including many semi-automatic rifles, pistols and ...
Monday, May 18, 2026
In the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), that acknowledged the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms, Justice Antonin Scalia noted some of the arms ...
Monday, May 18, 2026
Parents and others have expressed concerns over a continuing decline in student literacy rates and math skills. At the same time, there’s a worrying erosion of common sense and critical thinking on the part of ...
Saturday, May 16, 2026
Last year, the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office filed a lawsuit against Glock, Inc. under the state’s public nuisance law. This week, in connection with that lawsuit, FFLs across the state started receiving subpoenas demanding ...
Friday, May 15, 2026
The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote as early as next week on the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act.
More Like This From Around The NRA

















