DUNCAN V. BONTA GOES TO SCOTUS CONFERENCE - California Large Capacity Magazine Prohibition

[treelogger]

Gavin will respond by making mags over 10 rounds a felony. ...
That's how Excremento rolls.

• It's not Gavin, it's Governor Newsom. And calling it Excremento is right out. If you can't make a good enough argument and have to resort to invective, you have already lost the debate.
• Laws are passed by the legislature, not by the governor. In special cases (like this law), it is passed by the voters.
• Possession of large capacity magazines is an infraction or a misdemeanor, not a felony, right now (enforcement suspended by the pending lawsuit). Making it a felony (or a special prohibiting misdemeanor with a 10-year gun ban) might be a good idea, depending on one's viewpoint. Personally, I like to have LCMs.
• To my knowledge, there has been no gun law related case that has lasted 20+ years. The record is around 8 or 9, and Duncan may indeed be the record holder (or perhaps Nordyke).

 

[Jimi Jah]

Some laws are passed because this state has a whacky rule that if ignored by the executive, Mr. Newsom, they become law by default.

I know of no other state that does this. Is that how "democracy" is supposed to work? Under that system we don't need a governor.

Me, I like my 10 rounders. Not because of restrictive California but rather the high cost of ammo.

 

[M_N04H]

Standard. Capacity.

 

[treelogger]

Warning: Off topic.

Some laws are passed because this state has a whacky rule that if ignored by the executive, Mr. Newsom, they become law by default.

That happens very rarely. Perhaps never. I can't find a record of it happening, in particular on gun law.

I know of no other state that does this. Is that how "democracy" is supposed to work? Under that system we don't need a governor.

That is a complex and sometimes debated question. Should chief executives or heads of state have a "pocket veto", where they can veto a bill by doing nothing? At the federal level, the answer is: they sort of do, and they sort of don't (it depends on whether congress is in session). At the state level, California's "pocket approval" is supposedly a bit unusual, but as I said above, it doesn't seem to exist in practice. In other countries, it often falls to the head of state (if distinct from the chief executive) to approve acts of the legislature by signing them, but the right of veto or inaction is often highly restricted in those circumstances. There are again strong differences depending on whether the head of state is a constitutional monarch (who has to stay out of politics) or an elected president.

There is no single prescription on how democracy is supposed to work. Ours certainly does not work well.

And this question is wholly irrelevant to the discussion of Duncan.

 

[treelogger]

Standard. Capacity.

No, California laws refer to it as "large capacity magazine". Certainly, you can use other words if it pleases you, but you risk confusing people. It is more important to be understood by people interested in the law.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…

Winston Churchill

 

[couragewolf]

Some laws are passed because this state has a whacky rule that if ignored by the executive, Mr. Newsom, they become law by default.

I know of no other state that does this. Is that how "democracy" is supposed to work? Under that system we don't need a governor.

Me, I like my 10 rounders. Not because of restrictive California but rather the high cost of ammo.

I'm not particularly fond of the 10rd laws but out of all the laws we have that I find nonsensical the inability to acquire suppressors legally, and the stupid waffle grip BS drive me insane.

I can even stomach the whole muzzle brakes over FH's I actually prefer brakes that cans attach to, but the thumb blocker drives me insane.

It is absolutely more dangerous to operate a rifle that can't be manipulated in the way that it was designed to be safely.

I have basically a pallet of mags sitting in a former state I lived in waiting patiently for the stupid mag ban to expire, but I don't really care how many rds my mags have I want to operate my rifle/ARpistol as they were designed to be operated.

 

[oneaudiopro]

No, California laws refer to it as "large capacity magazine". Certainly, you can use other words if it pleases you, but you risk confusing people. It is more important to be understood by people interested in the law.

The only statement that is confusing is the term "Large capacity" magazine. For years manufactures have always referred to them as standard capacity. It just follows Liberal Logic like the term Assault Weapon. You can use whatever term pleases you but I'll continue to use the proper and more accurate descriptions.

 

[treelogger]

... at the same time claiming magazines are not arms.

Magazines are definitely not arms. This is a very simple common sense arguments. Nor are screws and rivets arms. Just like screws and rivets, magazines are often required to operate guns though.

I don't think you can find any law or court decision that states that magazines are (or are not) arms. The claim you repeat above is a dishonest talking point.

The real question here is the following: Does a ban on magazines implicate the 2A, in the sense that the ban amounts to a de-facto ban of all (or a whole class of) guns? The answer is: it depends. A complete ban on all magazines would leave a large fraction of all guns inoperable. As California's ban on large capacity magazines does not attempt that, it passes a quick glance constitutional inspection. Another question is whether the ban on operating certain guns with certain magazine capacities passes all the constitutionality tests under the Bruen standard. The most recent (and 2nd to highest) court decision has said it does. SCOTUS may disagree, but I doubt they will.

Magazines: not an issue of single round, but the basic 1911 carries 7 rounds and is a pistol designed for military use. The FBI stats (liberally applied) say civilian gunfights are 3 rounds/3 ft/3 seconds. Define the “accessory” as <5 rounds and the “self-defense” issue is resolved above one round, above the FBI stats, and below the standard capacity of the 1911 military weapon.

You may remember that at the time of the negotiations for the 1994 AWB, a magazine capacity of 5 rounds was heavily discussed. Would that pass constitutional muster? That's a more difficult question than the current 10-round limit. To begin with, it leaves most revolvers out, and a revolver is particularly the weapon that got special 2A protection in Heller.

But in the long run, I would not be surprised for example by a ban of 5 rounds on semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines.

 

[oneaudiopro]

Magazines are definitely not arms. This is a very simple common sense arguments. Nor are screws and rivets arms. Just like screws and rivets, magazines are often required to operate guns though.

I don't think you can find any law or court decision that states that magazines are (or are not) arms. The claim you repeat above is a dishonest talking point.

The real question here is the following: Does a ban on magazines implicate the 2A, in the sense that the ban amounts to a de-facto ban of all (or a whole class of) guns? The answer is: it depends. A complete ban on all magazines would leave a large fraction of all guns inoperable. As California's ban on large capacity magazines does not attempt that, it passes a quick glance constitutional inspection. Another question is whether the ban on operating certain guns with certain magazine capacities passes all the constitutionality tests under the Bruen standard. The most recent (and 2nd to highest) court decision has said it does. SCOTUS may disagree, but I doubt they will.


You may remember that at the time of the negotiations for the 1994 AWB, a magazine capacity of 5 rounds was heavily discussed. Would that pass constitutional muster? That's a more difficult question than the current 10-round limit. To begin with, it leaves most revolvers out, and a revolver is particularly the weapon that got special 2A protection in Heller.

But in the long run, I would not be surprised for example by a ban of 5 rounds on semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines.

You almost sound like a liberal. Who's to say how many rounds a firearm can be loaded with is sufficient? You failed to mention that Heller and Bruen only allow history and tradition and NOT public safety to make decisions on. 10 rounds is a very obscure number. Why not 2 rounds? Why not 13 rounds? A very common practice for criminals is to roll into a gas station, 5 or 6 guys pile out and rob or steal a car. Geeez, I only have 10 rounds to protect myself. This is just another effort by the left to reach their end game which is to ban guns forever. You mentioned the FBI and it wasn't too long ago (1986) the great Miami shootout where over 120 rounds were exchanged in just a few short minutes. So please plead your case on how many rounds are "adequate". smh

 

[Ro-bo]

The real question here is the following: Does a ban on magazines implicate the 2A, in the sense that the ban amounts to a de-facto ban of all (or a whole class of) guns? The answer is: it depends. A complete ban on all magazines would leave a large fraction of all guns inoperable. As California's ban on large capacity magazines does not attempt that, it passes a quick glance constitutional inspection. Another question is whether the ban on operating certain guns with certain magazine capacities passes all the constitutionality tests under the Bruen standard. The most recent (and 2nd to highest) court decision has said it does. SCOTUS may disagree, but I doubt they will.

That last part doesn't compute so feel free to correct my take on what you're saying if I'm misunderstanding something. The Supreme Court very much already disagrees/disagreed with certain lower court decisions which is why this is still up for debate. Your "real question" isn't completely accurate as many firearms will certainly operate without a magazine at all. That question --whether or not a complete magazine ban would render a firearm inoperable-- isn't the crux of the controversy either.

Bruen put the brakes on interest-balancing (or was supposed to) so the lower courts have pulled out all the stops to say that magazines fall outside of the 2A (thus not clearing Heller) because of this, that or another reason. This is a very calculated move precisely because existing bans miserably fail the so-called Bruen test in practice every time. The lower courts which have been resistant or outright hostile to Bruen, have stretched the meaning of "text, history and tradition" to include *any* sort of historical precedent where weapons were regulated (including things like Bowie knives) in order to justify contemporary laws.

The particulars of magazine bans (i.e. varying number of rounds allowed in different states) is irrelevant because those regulations make no sense when the core purpose of such laws are juxtaposed with Bruen. California could set a 50 round magazine limit which would be very permissive, and only affect by prohibition, a slim minority of normally available magazines, and it would still be unconstitutional.

 

[Ro-bo]

You failed to mention that Heller and Bruen only allow history and tradition and NOT public safety to make decisions on.

At the risk of speaking for someone else and getting it wrong, I'm positive Treelogger understands this, and was more or less trying to make the point that SCOTUS doesn't seem too bothered by the lower courts wholesale ignoring core principles of Bruen.

That much is pretty evident since the justices have already punted on magazine/AWBs/etc more than once post-Bruen, while giving loads of attention to and fast-tracking other non-2A cases in the meantime. In other words, our issue just isn't that pressing. Even the way Kavanaugh has framed things such as "the AR15 issue", leads me to believe that these are controversies that they are fine with leaving in the periphery.

 

[grandpapeepap]

You almost sound like a liberal. Who's to say how many rounds a firearm can be loaded with is sufficient? You failed to mention that Heller and Bruen only allow history and tradition and NOT public safety to make decisions on. 10 rounds is a very obscure number. Why not 2 rounds? Why not 13 rounds? A very common practice for criminals is to roll into a gas station, 5 or 6 guys pile out and rob or steal a car. Geeez, I only have 10 rounds to protect myself. This is just another effort by the left to reach their end game which is to ban guns forever. You mentioned the FBI and it wasn't too long ago (1986) the great Miami shootout where over 120 rounds were exchanged in just a few short minutes. So please plead your case on how many rounds are "adequate". smh

"you sound like a liberal" lmao. but 10 rounders iirc came from Ruger themselves pushing for magazine limits since they knew they couldnt outright ban AR15s back then and guess what their mini14s happened to be used with the most? 10 round mags back then. A firearm company sold people out to make their stuff more appealing. Not obscure if you look actually into what happened and why

 

[treelogger]

You almost sound like a liberal.

I most definitely am a liberal. And what does that have to do with the debate we're having? You seem to be using it an an insult, but that attempt failed.

Who's to say how many rounds a firearm can be loaded with is sufficient?

Who is to say? Not me. My personal opinion on the matter is of little importance. And by the way, in my personal opinion, a magazine capacity limit (of say 10 or 5 or 15) makes no sense from a public safety standpoint.

Who is to say? The legislatures. If you don't like their answers, you can use the famous four boxes.

You failed to mention that Heller and Bruen only allow history and tradition and NOT public safety to make decisions on.

You need to read Heller more carefully. It's not about history and tradition, it's about the inherent meaning of the 2A (minus the prefatory clause).

You mentioned the FBI ...

I did not.

So please plead your case on how many rounds are "adequate". smh

I'm not pleading a case. I'm pointing out that a lower limit (for example, 5 rounds for semi-automatic guns) could plausibly be passed by the legislatures. And if Duncan is rejected by the Supreme Court, it would even pass constitutional muster. Whether I like it or not is not relevant to this observation, and I don't.

 

[blacklight]

if were granted access to standard cap mags again will we be allowed to use them on our fixed mag se ups? or will that still be deemed an AW?

 

[couragewolf]

You almost sound like a liberal. Who's to say how many rounds a firearm can be loaded with is sufficient? You failed to mention that Heller and Bruen only allow history and tradition and NOT public safety to make decisions on. 10 rounds is a very obscure number. Why not 2 rounds? Why not 13 rounds? A very common practice for criminals is to roll into a gas station, 5 or 6 guys pile out and rob or steal a car. Geeez, I only have 10 rounds to protect myself. This is just another effort by the left to reach their end game which is to ban guns forever. You mentioned the FBI and it wasn't too long ago (1986) the great Miami shootout where over 120 rounds were exchanged in just a few short minutes. So please plead your case on how many rounds are "adequate". smh

"the left" wants homeless people and immigrants to have second amendment rights and access to the exact same arms the police and military have. You're talking about liberals, like Donald Trump, Pam Bondi and Gavin Newsome hope that helps clear things up.

 

[Skilly]

Magazines are definitely not arms. This is a very simple common sense arguments. Nor are screws and rivets arms. Just like screws and rivets, magazines are often required to operate guns though.

I don't think you can find any law or court decision that states that magazines are (or are not) arms. The claim you repeat above is a dishonest talking point.

The real question here is the following: Does a ban on magazines implicate the 2A, in the sense that the ban amounts to a de-facto ban of all (or a whole class of) guns? The answer is: it depends. A complete ban on all magazines would leave a large fraction of all guns inoperable. As California's ban on large capacity magazines does not attempt that, it passes a quick glance constitutional inspection. Another question is whether the ban on operating certain guns with certain magazine capacities passes all the constitutionality tests under the Bruen standard. The most recent (and 2nd to highest) court decision has said it does. SCOTUS may disagree, but I doubt they will.


You may remember that at the time of the negotiations for the 1994 AWB, a magazine capacity of 5 rounds was heavily discussed. Would that pass constitutional muster? That's a more difficult question than the current 10-round limit. To begin with, it leaves most revolvers out, and a revolver is particularly the weapon that got special 2A protection in Heller.

But in the long run, I would not be surprised for example by a ban of 5 rounds on semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines.

Im not sure I agree, and the analogy isnt great. Screws and rivets have useful purpose without the application of a gun.

A gun or a magazine without the other, are rendered nonfunctioning and incomplete. Therefore, a magazine is as integral a part of a gun, as is the barrel, or trigger, or chassis itself. So, if a magazine is not arms then it would make a gun without a magazine also not arms. Or, more correctly, they are both dependent on each other for their useful purpose and therefore they are both arms.

The notion that magazines are not arms is wordplay...and skirts all logic.

 

[governmentsucks1776]

You almost sound like a liberal. Who's to say how many rounds a firearm can be loaded with is sufficient? You failed to mention that Heller and Bruen only allow history and tradition and NOT public safety to make decisions on. 10 rounds is a very obscure number. Why not 2 rounds? Why not 13 rounds? A very common practice for criminals is to roll into a gas station, 5 or 6 guys pile out and rob or steal a car. Geeez, I only have 10 rounds to protect myself. This is just another effort by the left to reach their end game which is to ban guns forever. You mentioned the FBI and it wasn't too long ago (1986) the great Miami shootout where over 120 rounds were exchanged in just a few short minutes. So please plead your case on how many rounds are "adequate". smh

These are not liberals. These are tyrants who love to exercise control

 

[grandpapeepap]

There are guns without magazines, you dont need a magazine for a "gun". But thats being extra pedantic

 

[treelogger]

if were granted access to standard cap mags again will we be allowed to use them on our fixed mag se ups? or will that still be deemed an AW?

No, that is a separate part of the law, which is not being challenged in Duncan, and will remain in effect either way.