California's ban on gun magazines with a capacity of more than ten bullets will stand as the issue makes its way through a federal appeals court, the Washington Examiner reported. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled Tuesday in favor of the state's petition to keep the law on the books despite an earlier ruling striking it down.

Last month, District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego found that the limit on ammunition was unconstitutional in light of the Second Amendment. Using the precedent of a 2022 ruling in New York State, Benitez found that the California law was not "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."

California Attorney General Rob Bonta initiated the appeal following that ruling. In a statement following Tuesday's decision to keep the law in effect during the legal battle, Bonta celebrated the temporary victory.

"We are relieved that the court considered the public safety of Californians in its decision to grant our motion and maintain the restrictions on large-capacity magazines pending a decision on appeal. With the stay, California’s restrictions on large capacity magazines — a key component in our efforts to fight gun violence — remain in effect," Bonta said.

"Californians should know that the purchase, manufacture, or transfer of large-capacity magazines is against the law," the district attorney added. Bonta further noted that the state already passed a limit on larger magazines in 2016 under Proposition 63 and believes the measure is life-saving.

"In the past half-century, large-capacity magazines have been used in about three-quarters of gun massacres with 10 or more deaths and in 100 percent of gun massacres with 20 or more deaths. We will continue to fight for our authority to keep Californians safe from weapon enhancements designed to cause mass casualties," Bonta said.

"In the meantime, if the Ninth Circuit stays the decision pending appeal, large-capacity magazines will remain unlawful for purchase, transfer, or possession in California," he added. Thus continues the slow march to disarming law-abiding citizens in California and everywhere else.

President Joe Biden's administration has been brazen about its efforts to chip away at gun rights and will use whatever means necessary. It appears one of the tactics currently being employed is to unfairly strip gun dealers of their licenses.

In a letter to the president last month, Sens. Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst demanded answers for the uptick of such actions, Fox News reported. "On November 7, 2022, we sent you a letter requesting further information about the processes and impacts of the so-called ‘zero-tolerance’ policy under which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) may revoke a Federal Firearms License (FFL) for a single ‘willful’ violation of the law," the lawmakers wrote.

"Nearly one year later, you have failed to respond," the letter said. They further charged that using the ATF to advance his anti-gun agenda "directly undermines our federal government’s system of checks and balances."

The ATF is seeking an additional $1.8 billion in its budget, which would provide the salaries for another 500 more employees to continue this crusade. As it is, gun dealers are already suffering under the ATF's crackdown.

"We are concerned the overzealous enforcement of minor paperwork errors is shuttering the doors of hardworking businesses and infringing on the Second Amendment in the process, including hardworking businesses across Iowa," the letter stated as an example of the damage. "Just recently, an Iowa FFL in the Des Moines area reported to us they had to give up their license due to clerical errors that were not willfully committed, and we are aware of another Iowa FFL who is currently working through the revocation process under similar circumstances."

Gun dealers are also seeing this for what it is. "We were making $1 million a year, now it’s less than $100,000," gun dealer Anthony Navarro, who lost his license after his third violation in a 14-year period, said. "This policy is designed to be a backdoor violation of the Second Amendment," Navarro pointed out.

Democrats routinely attempt to restrict the Second Amendment in every way they can. Unfortunately, once the right to bear arms is gone, no other right is safe -- and the left knows it.