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

[adrkwan]

The US DOJ was a defendent in the lawsuit

https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/Benson%20v%20US%20et%20al%2023-CV-0541%20FINAL.pdf

Yeah, they flipped recently and would no longer defend the ban. Even if they weren't a party, their statements of interest are usually persuasive.

 

[adrkwan]

In the federal court of appeals, in particular the 9th circuit. The question we are discussing here is the DC court of appeals, which is NOT a federal circuit court. The District of Columbia is today more like a state than like the federal government, as far as having an AG and its own court system is concerned (although only "more like" and "not completely identical to").

This does create an interesting conflict with Hanson (Circuit Court of Appeals) on 11+ mag bans. Hanson said DC could ban the mags, Benson says DC cannot.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

This does create an interesting conflict with Hanson (Circuit Court of Appeals) on 11+ mag bans. Hanson said DC could ban the mags, Benson says DC cannot.

If only there was a way to resolve conflicts in interpretation.....

 

[adrkwan]

If only there was a way to resolve conflicts in interpretation.....

. If only...

 

[Dvrjon]

For fun….

Wikipedia:

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (in case citations, D.C. Cir.) is one of the thirteen United States Courts of Appeals. It has the smallest geographical jurisdiction of any of the U.S. courts of appeals, and it covers only the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

From Footnote #1 of the Decision (emphasis mine):

This court’s rules require that the District be provided notice of any appeal
raising a challenge to “the constitutionality of an act of the Council of the District of
Columbia,” like the present Second Amendment challenge to the District’s ban on
11+ magazines. D.C. App. R. 44(b). After receiving that notice, the District
expressly sought to intervene “as an appellee” in this appeal. Both Benson and the
United States consented to its party status, and this court granted its motion “to
intervene as an appellee.
The District is thus a party, and has all the rights of a
party, in this appeal. That includes the right to petition for rehearing, rehearing en
banc, or certiorari in response to this opinion.

Decisions of the D.C. Circuit have been appealed to SCOTUS in the past (See: District of Columbia, et al. v Heller.). For recent comparisons, SCOTUSBlog in 2025 reported (https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/07/by-the-numbers/):

Of the 56 decisions in 2025, 12 or about 20%, were reviewing the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. By comparison, the next most frequent were eight decisions reviewing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, seven decisions reviewing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, and five reviewing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

It should be noted that the 9CA has about a 10-fold greater caseload than the DC CA. Ballotpedia also has a breakdown of cases submitted to all federal appellate courts here: https://ballotpedia.org/Supreme_Court_cases,_October_term_2024-2025#Cases_by_circuit

Since the subject of the charges has been exonerated by the panel, an appeal from that quarter is unlikely. That leaves us with the Council of the District of Columbia holding the bag to decide if they want to appeal. The rules usually give the party appealing 14 days to file for either panel rehearing of en banc, or both. But, if the federal government is involved, the timeline is 45 days. see: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_40. I have no clue if the Council under its odd structure constitutes a federal activity, but we’ll see.

Final trivia: Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, (Ruth Bader Ginsburg), Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson all served as judges on the DC CA. Justice Amy Coney Barrett served as a law clerk for a D.C. Circuit judge (Laurence Silberman) but was appointed to the Supreme Court from the 7th.

Make what you will of this, but the case may interest the SCOTUS more than one would initially think, and federal DOJ may join on our side.

 

[treelogger]

For fun….

For more fun, consider this Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Court_of_Appeals

There is both a United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and a District of Columbia Court of Appeals. And they are separate. The former is a federal court (just like the 9th circuit), as you explained. The second one is ... different. Not really a state supreme court, but also definitely not a federal court.

And I agree with everything else you said. It is quite possible that SCOTUS has been holding Duncan because they knew that Benson was coming. It is also possible that they were holding it until they know their own decision in the recent marijuana 2A case (whose name I have already forgotten). It is also possible that they are holding it simply because they haven't had time to come to a conclusion about what to do with it, and document that. Or something else. Or a combination of things.

 

[adrkwan]

For more fun, consider this Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Court_of_Appeals

There is both a United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and a District of Columbia Court of Appeals. And they are separate. The former is a federal court (just like the 9th circuit), as you explained. The second one is ... different. Not really a state supreme court, but also definitely not a federal court.

And I agree with everything else you said. It is quite possible that SCOTUS has been holding Duncan because they knew that Benson was coming. It is also possible that they were holding it until they know their own decision in the recent marijuana 2A case (whose name I have already forgotten). It is also possible that they are holding it simply because they haven't had time to come to a conclusion about what to do with it, and document that. Or something else. Or a combination of things.

Hemani and Duncan are not very closely related. The first issue in Duncan is almost identical to the that of Benson. If I remember correctly, Duncan came to a different factual finding about both whether magazines are considered "arms" under the 2A and whether they are in common use for self-defense in the US.

Hemani: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.

Duncan: (1) Whether a ban on the possession of exceedingly common ammunition feeding devices violates the Second Amendment; and (2) whether a law dispossessing citizens, without compensation, of property that they lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the takings clause.

 

[Dvrjon]

For more fun, consider this Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Court_of_Appeals

And I agree with everything else you said. It is quite possible that SCOTUS has been holding Duncan because they knew that Benson was coming.

The problem with Benson versus Duncan is that the Duncan decision states magazines are not arms. Benson says they are. SCOTUS could move ahead with Duncan and resolve that question foreclosing a need to review Benson. So why wait for Benson?

It is also possible that they were holding it until they know their own decision in the recent marijuana 2A case

But why did the Court accept Hemani? There are folks around who think that SCOTUS is too darn busy to waste time with trivial firearms issues like Duncan, and yet the Court took a case to determine whether a marijuana smoker can have access to firearms. I haven’t polled anybody but I doubt that issue is top of mind for a vast section of the nation. But, perhaps the Court recognizes that the 2A isn’t a second class right and resolving issues of national practice has relevance today. Perhaps, when the Solicitor General weighs in, the case gets more credence?

Or something else. Or a combination of things.

I’m back with you.

 

[treelogger]

But why did the Court accept Hemani?

My theory: Both adrkwan and you are way to deep in the weeds of the technicalities of 2A jurisprudence. My suspicion (without any proof!) Is that the justices are looking at a much more fundamental issue: How are others courts using the new Bruen framework and rules? Is Bruen working, or does it need to be refined?

It's like Chevron deference: This has long stopped being about an oil company coincidentally called Chevron, and is all about the balance of power between legislature and agencies. The cases the court takes are not about water quality, climate change, vehicle safety, but about that balance of power.

There are folks around who think that SCOTUS is too darn busy to waste time with trivial firearms issues ...

And I'm one of those folks. Which is why I think Hamani is about another balance of power issue, not about smoking weed or shooting guns. P.S. Thank you for reminding me that the case is called Hamani. Next question: Anyone know who this Alzheimer fellow is?

Perhaps, when the Solicitor General weighs in, the case gets more credence?

At this juncture, it could also be the opposite. The federal government hasn't had a particularly good track record in the court in the last year or so.

 

[tomrkba]

Bruen needs to be enforced by the court, not "refined".

 

[Dvrjon]

P.S. Thank you for reminding me that the case is called Hamani. Next question: Anyone know who this Alzheimer fellow is?

At my age I believe that if you remember you forgot something you’re OK.
If you don’t remember you forgot something, you’re also OK because you don’t remember you forgot it…
unless it’s your pants; then you are not OK.

 

[Dvrjon]

9 Mar: Orders don’t appear to include Duncan (Case # 25-198).

 

[FreedomWeekLawyer]

9 Mar: Orders don’t appear to include Duncan (Case # 25-198).

Does this mean they snoozed on Duncan one more time?

 

[Dvrjon]

Does this mean they snoozed on Duncan one more time?

Yes.

 

[Hit Factor]

Does this mean they snoozed on Duncan one more time?

They now need to discuss the split between the 9th Circuit and the D.C. Circuit, and possibly consider the likely appeal from the District of Columbia after last week’s decision in Benson.

https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/Benson v US et al 23-CV-0541 FINAL.pdf

 

[IrregularDefense]

They now need to discuss the split between the 9th Circuit and the D.C. Circuit, and possibly consider the likely appeal from the District of Columbia after last week’s decision in Benson.
View attachment 162806
https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/Benson v US et al 23-CV-0541 FINAL.pdf

It's not a circuit split. It's the DC Court of Appeals. Likely to go en banc.

 

[NorCalBusa]

That thread title change is looking even more attractive. Change it back when SCOTUS is done effing around.

 

[Hit Factor]

It's not a circuit split. It's the DC Court of Appeals. Likely to go en banc.

See:

Federal Judicial Circuits: District of Columbia Circuit | Federal Judicial Center

Includes landmark legislation, congressional committees, appropriations, administrative agencies, court officers and staff…

www.fjc.gov

 

[adrkwan]

See:

Federal Judicial Circuits: District of Columbia Circuit | Federal Judicial Center

Includes landmark legislation, congressional committees, appropriations, administrative agencies, court officers and staff…

www.fjc.gov

Yup, that's the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/) that authored the Hanson decision earlier. The Benson decision was authored by the D.C. Court of Appeals (https://www.dccourts.gov/court-of-appeals) which is the functional equivalent of every other state's Supreme Court. Whoever decided on the naming convention for the Courts did a horrible job.

 

[treelogger]

See:

Federal Judicial Circuits: District of Columbia Circuit | Federal Judicial Center

Includes landmark legislation, congressional committees, appropriations, administrative agencies, court officers and staff…

www.fjc.gov

IrregularDefense is correct. The decision in Benson is not from the federal court circuit for DC; it is from the DC appeals court, which is like a "state supreme court" for the "state" of DC. Yes, I know the naming of these two courts is terribly confusing. Also, Benson has not exhausted its lower court proceedings, as IrregularDefense also said, as it can still be appealed in the same DC appeals court by going en bank. So it is premature for the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) to take it up.