DRGO Files Amicus Brief in Duncan (CA) Magazine Ban Case

In response to a brief from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) filed in the Duncan v. Bercerra case, Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership (DRGO) has submitted an amicus brief to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

DRGO is a project of the Second Amendment Foundation. Their brief argues that the injunction issued by U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez should be affirmed.

At the core of the Duncan case is the question: “Can a state confiscate arms that are in common use by law-abiding citizens?”

“The AAP and ACEP submitted a brief filled with lazy and hackneyed arguments supported by criminological authorities the likes of motherjones.com,” said DRGO Project Director Arthur Z. Przebinda, MD. “This is in keeping with their tradition of relying on shoddy academic work to support an agenda of civilian disarmament.”

DRGO’s brief argues that:
• “Large-Capacity” Magazines are in wide, common use, are not “dangerous and unusual,” and as such are constitutionally protected.
• The magazines in question are very rarely used in mass shootings.
• The ban dispossesses law-abiding citizens but will not dispossess criminals.
• The ban will endanger good people by reducing the number of defensive shots they can fire.

The brief was prepared for DRGO by Colorado attorney Joseph G.S. Greenlee, who is Counsel of Record for all amici: DRGO, the Independence Institute and the Millennial Policy Center. Attorney David B. Kopel of the Independence Institute co-authored the brief.

“Joseph Greenlee did stellar work in compiling a detailed brief, founded in research and case law,” Dr. Przebinda said.


  • sponsor
  • sponsor
  • sponsor
  • sponsor
  • sponsor
  • sponsor
  • sponsor