Proposition 63 is a California ballot proposition that passed on the November 8, 2016 ballot. It requires a background check and California Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition, prohibits possession of standard-capacity ammunition magazines, levies fines for failing to report when guns are stolen or lost, establishes procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by specified persons, and requires California Department of Justice's participation in the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Supporters of the measure stated that it would “fix a major flaw” put in place by the passing of Proposition 47 in 2014 by stating that theft of a firearm is a felony, regardless of its monetary value. A September 2016 poll from USC Dornsife / Los Angeles Times showed 64% percent of registered voters in favor of Proposition 63, 28% opposed, and 8% unknown. A November 2016 poll from Insights West showed 57% percent of likely voters in favor of Proposition 63, 35% opposed, and 8% undecided. Proposition 63 passed.
Federal case
On appeal, the federal courts stayed the new law as the state failed to show how this law didn't violate the Second Amendment or the property rights of owners of previously legal goods. On March 29, 2019, Judge Roger Benitez ruled Proposition 63 unconstitutional, citing lawful defensive use of firearms across the state of California, specifically in the hands of women. Benitez stated that various violent crimes were far more common than mass shootings, and people can use firearms to defend themselves from them providing the law allows it, giving several examples in the first few pages of the opinion. "As in the year 2017, in 2016 there were numerous robberies, rapes, and murders of individuals in California and no mass shootings. Nevertheless, a gubernatorial candidate was successful in sponsoring a statewide ballot measure. Californians approved the proposition and added criminalization and dispossession elements to existing law prohibiting a citizen from acquiring and keeping a firearm magazine that is able to hold more than 10 rounds. The State now defends the prohibition on magazines, asserting that mass shootings are an urgent problem and that restricting the size of magazines a citizen may possess is part of the solution.
