18+ Content Warning

By clicking Enter, you confirm you are 18 years of age or older and agree to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws.

Notice: Any content or member activity - including anything you may buy, sell, transfer, or discuss - must comply with current and upcoming laws.

Members are encouraged to stay informed: California Firearm Laws: 2026 Outlook & 2025 Recap . Responsibility for compliance rests solely with the individual member.

What's new
caguns.net

Welcome to CAguns.net!
Join our growing community where you can ask questions, share knowledge, or browse our classifieds section.

Sign up for a free account today and unlock full access! Once registered, you can search, post, and take advantage of exclusive features unavailable to guests.

A note on why more of the site now requires an account: automated scrapers and AI systems have been crawling our forums and classifieds at a scale. Requiring sign-in for those sections is the most effective tool we have. It takes a minute to register, it's free, and it keeps what happens here between actual members.

New to California gun ownership or trying to keep up with the changing laws? Check out our sister site CA2A.com — free courses, plain-English legal updates, and step-by-step guides built for California owners.

Advanced features are available only to registered members. Register today!

Rost Martin R1MF comes to Califnoria

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

For those thinking the Benson case in DC would be of help, the District has been granted a rehearing en banc. That means the Panel Decision has been set aside and no longer poses the potential for a district conflict. The en banc process will continue well beyond this SCOTUS session, and Benson may receive direction from SCOTUS action in this term through Wolford or Hemani.
 
Last edited:
Jcwatchdog said:
The only true help will be ANJRPC v. Platkin, if it goes our way in the 3rd.
Click to expand...
It’s not going to do anything for us this session.

The en banc was over in October 2025, and we are awaiting a Decision. I suspect the 3 CA is waiting on SCOTUS to rule on Wolford and/or Hemani before issuing their Decision. If they don’t wait, they run the risk of SCOTUS big footing their decision and embarrassing them. Better to let SCOTUS rule and if it conflicts with their decision, they can simply issue a decision to remand based on SCOTUS’ new guidance.

Whatever happens with ANJRPC, it won’t get tee’d up at SCOTUS until next year.

We’re at the end of April and SCOTUS’ Argument Days end on this Wednesday, on the 29th. They have a full Conference Day on May 1, and after that, they have combined Conference/Non-Argument Sessions on Thursdays through June 25.

Balance that with the Court’s history of holding major case decisions until late June:
Dobbs: 24 Jun
Heller: 26 Jun
MacDonald: 28 Jun
Rahimi: 21 Jun.​
 
Dvrjon said:
It’s not going to do anything for us this session.

The en banc was over in October 2025, and we are awaiting a Decision. I suspect the 3 CA is waiting on SCOTUS to rule on Wolford and/or Hemani before issuing their Decision. If they don’t wait, they run the risk of SCOTUS big footing their decision and embarrassing them. Better to let SCOTUS rule and if it conflicts with their decision, they can simply issue a decision to remand based on SCOTUS’ new guidance.

Whatever happens with ANJRPC, it won’t get tee’d up at SCOTUS until next year.

We’re at the end of April and SCOTUS’ Argument Days end on this Wednesday, on the 29th. They have a full Conference Day on May 1, and after that, they have combined Conference/Non-Argument Sessions on Thursdays through June 25.

Balance that with the Court’s history of holding major case decisions until late June:
Dobbs: 24 Jun​
Heller: 26 Jun​
MacDonald: 28 Jun​
Rahimi: 21 Jun.​
Click to expand...
Saving the decisions for the start of summer, suns out guns out ? :cool:
 
Just so Im following this correctly, with Wolford and Hemani if the court leaves the definition of dangerousness too wide, it essentially leaves the path for the state to expand that to include standard capacity magazines and Duncan starts to fall apart?

And with the Rahimi decision, states are attempting to invoke historical traditions of disarming dangerous people and regulating dangerous weapons. The CADOJ then need to prove an historical dangerousness principle to a product for which no categorical danger exists? If so, Freedom Week is direct empirical evidence that the state's dangerousness predicate is factually unfounded, and in fact, proven otherwise as an inconvenient (to Bonta) outcome of Freedom Week. With that natural experiment now playing out for several years, they run face first into Bruen, no?

Wouldn't it make sense if a formally commissioned statistical study of California crime data before, during, and after Freedom Week, was prepared to deliver via amicus brief from a credible criminology or public policy organization. That puts citable empirical evidence in the record directly rebutting the state's factual predicate, without asking SCOTUS to revert to the means-ends balancing Bruen explicitly buried.
 
Last edited:
Skilly said:
Just so Im following this correctly, with Wolford and Hemani if the court leaves the definition of dangerousness too wide, it essentially leaves the path for the state to expand that to include standard capacity magazines and Duncan starts to fall apart?

And with the Rahimi decision, states are attempting to invoke historical traditions of disarming dangerous people and regulating dangerous weapons. The CADOJ then need to prove an historical dangerousness principle to a product for which no categorical danger exists? If so, Freedom Week is direct empirical evidence that the state's dangerousness predicate is factually unfounded, and in fact, proven otherwise as an inconvenient (to Bonta) outcome of Freedom Week. With that natural experiment now playing out for several years, they run face first into Bruen, no?

Wouldn't it make sense if a formally commissioned statistical study of California crime data before, during, and after Freedom Week, was prepared to deliver via amicus brief from a credible criminology or public policy organization. That puts citable empirical evidence in the record directly rebutting the state's factual predicate, without asking SCOTUS to revert to the means-ends balancing Bruen explicitly buried.
Click to expand...
It would make sense if the courts were actually non partial and changed their minds based on evidence but these courts both at the circuit level and the supreme level already have their minds made up based on their own ideologies.
 
Skilly said:
with Wolford and Hemani if the court leaves the definition of dangerousness too wide
Click to expand...
The supreme court will "stay in its lane" and say nothing regarding dangerousness (at least regarding hardware). That isn't a question before the court on either Wolford or Hemani. So how did we get a change in how the court approaches hardware from a concealed carry case (Bruen)? The court issued guidance on how to interpret what is constitutional by instructing how to apply the second amendment to posed questions. Any guidance issued through Hemani or Wolford will likely need to be general and broad to touch Duncan. I.e, how are the courts failing to apply prior/new guidance when deciding this case, which incidentally must be followed on all other 2A cases. Then the court will vacate any other 2A cases they deem didn't follow the proscribed method and remand them to the lower court to take another shot at "getting it right".

Skilly said:
The CADOJ then need to prove an historical dangerousness principle to a product for which no categorical danger exists?
Click to expand...
Must they? First of all, the proper test is "dangerous AND unusual", not just dangerous. Secondly, given the track record of the 9th circus since Bruen landed, what makes you think they have any intention of toeing the line for the supreme court? 9CA has shown a remarkable resilence in refusing to follow guidance. However, if and when one law falls (if struck down directly by the supreme court- like may issue), the legislature passes another to fill the gap (SB2). Tadaa! I still can't carry in public.

Skilly said:
With that natural experiment now playing out for several years, they run face first into Bruen, no?
Click to expand...
Yes. They ran into Bruen years ago. But we are now a fractured and partisan country. We are getting to the point in our national maturity called "might makes". Do they have the power to do what they want regardless? Ok, then they'll do it. As the apocryphal Andrew Jackson quote goes: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!". To update for modern times: "Oh yeah? You and what army?"
Because the supreme court has no army. They can only really ask the president "pretty please, risk starting a civil war over this".
 
Benson follow up. Just to close off the D.C. District case going en banc, the CA AG has noticed SCOTUS of the action. This vacates the Panel Opinion and Judgement in our favor and eliminates what some some have viewed as a split in the lower courts worthy of SCOTUS notice.

The April 22 Order sets the following schedule:

Appellant Brief in 30 days
Answering Brief in another 30
Responding Brief in another 21.

That’s almost 3 months before it can be heard and that is dependent upon the Court of Appeal’s schedule.
 
SilverEndless said:
Has it been Distributed for the next conference yet? I don’t see an update to the docket on my bookmark.
Click to expand...
Not as of 4 pm (L),so they've gone home for the day.

But on May 13, they are shifting to Thursday 1/2 day conferences; 1/2 day Non-argument sessions, so the coming 4-hour sessions may have them jockeying a bit.

They have seven, 1/2-day conferences left in the session.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom