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

[Jcwatchdog]

No number is arbitrary: For most numbers (same with barrel length and caliber) I can find some sensible justification. The question which justification to pick is up to legislators and courts, not you or me.

I know you said we didn’t get to pick which justification, but just give me something that they might use as to say why 10 is ok, and 11 is too much, or 10 is too much and 9 should be the standard.

 

[Jcwatchdog]

In 1989, William B. Ruger Sr., the co-founder of Sturm, Ruger & Co., actively pushed for magazine capacity limits.
Ruger wrote a letter to every member of the U.S. Congress on March 30, 1989. He proposed banning the possession of magazines holding more than 15 rounds as a tactical move to prevent broader bans on semi-automatic rifles. He famously stated in a 1992 interview, "No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun"

remember at the time mini14s had 10 round mags from ruger. remember its not "random" where they got the 10 round limit, it was by design from someone who sold mostly non 30round mag firearms

But Ruger didn’t actually make a case why ten was the right number, or a specific reason why they chose 10. They just made a statement about 10 rounds and went with it. I don’t think there was any evidence about why an honest man needed only 10 rounds, other than that was the number they happened to make, and wanted to protect their own interests.

 

[grandpapeepap]

But Ruger didn’t actually make a case why ten was the right number, or a specific reason why they chose 10. They just made a statement about 10 rounds and went with it. I don’t think there was any evidence about why an honest man needed only 10 rounds, other than that was the number they happened to make, and wanted to protect their own interests.

they sold the mini14 which only had 10 round mags from ruger, hurting competition and helping them. i even stated that in my statements that you quoted?

 

[Jcwatchdog]

they sold the mini14 which only had 10 round mags from ruger, hurting competition and helping them. i even stated that in my statements that you quoted?

Yes, but a random company making a statement about capacity shouldn’t be a reason for the government to chose 10 and say that’s enough. Who was Ruger to be the final arbiter of how many rounds were allowed? They didn’t give a reason as to why 10 was the magic number other than “honest men” didn’t need more than 10.

 

[grandpapeepap]

Yes, but a random company making a statement about capacity shouldn’t be a reason for the government to chose 10 and say that’s enough. Who was Ruger to be the final arbiter of how many rounds were allowed? They didn’t give a reason as to why 10 was the magic number other than “honest men” didn’t need more than 10.

it wasnt just a statement, they talked to the lawmakers? and it was because of their products not random. but okay we can be done

 

[DB>)>]

There is something quite thoroughly absurd to be living in a state where (hand)guns MUST have a Magazine Disconnect to be allowed to be sold, yet the state declares that a magazine is nothing more than an "acoutrement" or "accessory" rather than a necessary part to allow the basic intended functionality.

And further that said accessory can be arbitrarily neutered, restricted, or banned at the whims of government...

The 2A was meant to RESTRICT GOVERNMENT from disarming people and separating them from their rights to defend self, family, neighbors, commmunity, and country. And offered in exchange is an illusionary promise of "safety" or "protection" provided by the government. SCOTUS has already declared that government in actual fact has no obligation or liability to provide said safety or protection!!!

Effectively the government wants to dictate how you are ALLOWED to defend against death or great bodily injury.... Since when is that sort of "trade-off" deemed acceptable????

Let's say an older individual with limited strength and adverse to recoil wants to use a .22LR pistol or rifle for self defense (or maybe a .22WMR!)... should the government be allowed to force them to be limited to "10 rounds", when larger capacity mags would provide additional or more effective defensive capability??? Or like ol' Joe said, just an old shotgun you can rack and crank off a round or two...

Not saying you should be parking an M1A1 or a CWIS on your front lawn (kinda hard to "bear"), but if someone wants to have a FRT equipped Taurus TX22 with an extendo mag... why not? Certainly not because some paper pushing bureaucrat makes up random arbitrary rules criminalizing otherwise safe and legal conduct or ownership!

 

[grandpapeepap]

There is something quite thoroughly absurd to be living in a state where (hand)guns MUST have a Magazine Disconnect to be allowed to be sold, yet the state declares that a magazine is nothing more than an "acoutrement" or "accessory" rather than a necessary part to allow the basic intended functionality.

And further that said accessory can be arbitrarily neutered, restricted, or banned at the whims of government...

The 2A was meant to RESTRICT GOVERNMENT from disarming people and separating them from their rights to defend self, family, neighbors, commmunity, and country. And offered in exchange is an illusionary promise of "safety" or "protection" provided by the government. SCOTUS has already declared that government in actual fact has no obligation or liability to provide said safety or protection!!!

Effectively the government wants to dictate how you are ALLOWED to defend against death or great bodily injury.... Since when is that sort of "trade-off" deemed acceptable????

Let's say an older individual with limited strength and adverse to recoil wants to use a .22LR pistol or rifle for self defense (or maybe a .22WMR!)... should the government be allowed to force them to be limited to "10 rounds", when larger capacity mags would provide additional or more effective defensive capability??? Or like ol' Joe said, just an old shotgun you can rack and crank off a round or two...

Not saying you should be parking an M1A1 or a CWIS on your front lawn (kinda hard to "bear"), but if someone wants to have a FRT equipped Taurus TX22 with an extendo mag... why not? Certainly not because some paper pushing bureaucrat makes up random arbitrary rules criminalizing otherwise safe and legal conduct or ownership!

very true, ive met quite a few people who dont understand the bill of rights is restrictions on the government itself

 

[Dvrjon]

Interesting discussions, above.

A few thoughts:
TL;DR: Wolford impacts May/Carralero (SB2, CCW) [see: https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...6-Order-Consolidating-Cases-May-Carralero.pdf ] but doesn’t impact Duncan.

First, Wolford reached only the default rule for public-facing businesses.

Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

See Syllabus, page 3, HELD at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1046_nmio.pdf

Hawai‘i’s law still stands for private property that isn’t generally open to the public and the decision doesn’t touch sensitive places like schools or polling places, where the Supreme Court has already made clear that it’s okay to ban guns.

This doesn’t appear to impact Duncan in any way. The impact will affect May/Carralero v Bonta, the lawsuit against SB 2 in California which has been held at the 9CA pending Wolford. With settling of Wolford, parties have 14 days to submit a status report to 9CA.
See: https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2025-10-14-Order-Granting-Stay.pdf

/////////////

Second, and perhaps more important, Wolford provided no new guidance on the first question of Bruen: Does the Second Amendment’s plain text cover the regulated conduct? The Court simply found that,

As with any Second Amendment challenge, we began by asking whether the restrictions imposed by the challenged law fall within the plain text of the Second Amendment, see Bruen, 597 U. S., at 17, and we find that this requirement is easily met. No party disputes that petitioners are among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment or that they seek to “bear,” i.e., to carry, “arms.” Therefore, “the plain text of the Second Amendment protects” what petitioners want to do: carry handguns for self-defense.

See Opinion, Pg 13, Section IV, A, Para 1&2: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1046_nmio.pdf

Once the first question is answered (does the plain text protect?) the government is tasked with proving how historical legal actions in this area support the challenged statute through similar or analogous laws during the Founding of the country.

In Duncan, the first question is still unresolved.

In Duncan, the 9 CA asserts that:

First, the text of the Second Amendment does not encompass the right to possess large-capacity magazines because large-capacity magazines are neither “arms” nor protected accessories.

See Pg. 3, Paras 2&3 at: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/20/23-55805.pdf
Opposing briefs disagree, Page 2 @: (https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/2025-11-05-Petitioners-Reply-Brief.pdf )

The D.C. and Third Circuits have held that magazines fit squarely within the Second Amendment’s plain text, no matter whether they hold two rounds or 20. The First Circuit has assumed the same. But the Ninth and Seventh Circuits (plus Washington’s Supreme Court) have reached the opposite conclusion, holding that some or all magazines are not covered by the plain text at all.

Citations omitted.

So, the question is unsettled and must be resolved by SCOTUS since Wolford does no work to settle this in Duncan. That appears to make remanding to lower courts for review of the first question unlikely.

9CA continued (same citation):

Second, even assuming that the text of the Second Amendment encompasses the possession of optional accessories like large-capacity magazines, California’s ban on large-capacity magazines falls within the Nation’s tradition of protecting innocent persons by prohibiting especially dangerous uses of weapons and by regulating components necessary to the firing of a firearm.

But we only get to the second question if the first question is affirmative for falling under the protection of the plain text of the Second Amendment. Because the first question hasn’t been answered, the Wolford discussion of historical analogs seems irrelevant to Duncan and doesn’t appear to provide grounds for remand.

 

[1911-CV]

There is a certain logical path through all this...
1) Describe the principle as to how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied as a right (Bruen)
2) Clarify how to apply the Bruen logic (Wolford)
3) TBD - Clarify what is protected (Duncan? or one of the other AR/Magazine ban cases)

 

[Dvrjon]

There is a certain logical path through all this...

 

[treelogger]

Because the first question hasn’t been answered, the Wolford discussion of historical analogs seems irrelevant to Duncan and doesn’t appear to provide grounds for remand.

I think this is the core observation for other cases. In Duncan, your analysis seems correct: Once we reach the conclusion that magazines are neither "arms or protected accessories" in the context of the question raised here (self defense in the house or while carrying, which is keep and bear), the game is over.

I really like the word "protected accessories", because it describes the gist of what I've been trying to express (very badly) above: Magazines are clearly not arms in the narrow sense of the word (you can't fire a magazine and expect a bullet to come out). Large capacity magazines are also not necessary components of arms, unlike things like screws or firing pins (if all screws were banned, no more bullets would come out, and so on). The term "protected accessories" gives us a word to describe things are are not in and of themselves arms nor their parts, but that are needed for the arm to function in the intended usage. Ammunition is another similar category of things.

Following your logic, all the Supreme Court can do with Duncan is deny cert. With all due respect: I hope you're wrong, even though your logic seems unassailable.

 

[DB>)>]

Buried in a footnote on Pg 18 (p22 in the pdf) is the following:

Likewise, a State may not “‘sidestep theTakings Clause’ ” by enacting a law purporting to extinguish a propertyinterest. Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U. S. 631, 638–639 (2023)

Duncan "extinguishes a property interest" to the extent that whether standard cap mags are "guns or parts thereof" or foo foo "acutrements", they are without a doubt "property", and the takings clause is HIGHLY material to Duncan SCOTUS is sending weak smoke signals, but signalling nonetheless. Probably not enough to GVR over a footnote, but.... the 9th Circuit opinion definitely crosses the line.

 

[DB>)>]

As I posted, California has made a magazine a REQUIREMENT for a handgun to be rostered, sold and used as intended. IF it is just a unnecessary "accessory", as is currently being pled...

They CANNOT have it both ways, but they are hoping SCOTUS will give them cake and let them eat it too. We can only hope that SCOTUS has been busy preparing a different dish... or perhaps waiting for a clear circuit split that will end the schizophrenic CA view of guns?

 

[Dvrjon]

I think this is the core observation for other cases. In Duncan, your analysis seems correct: Once we reach the conclusion that magazines are neither "arms or protected accessories" in the context of the question raised here (self defense in the house or while carrying, which is keep and bear), the game is over.

Yes, but that game hasn’t been resolved in Duncan, and only SCOTUS can “…say what the law is.”

Following your logic, all the Supreme Court can do with Duncan is deny cert. With all due respect: I hope you're wrong, even though your logic seems unassailable.

Not at all certain how you landed there.

My position is they can’t use Wolford as a GVR device, as it doesn’t provide any guidance to the issues of Duncan.

That does not invite a denial of the case. The problem with outright denial, as I’ve pointed out before, is Gator’s Custom Guns. Same issue, but the Washington law allows retention of magazines. If they deny Duncan, they have to deny Gator’s. That creates an unequal application of the law because CA owners will lose their mags.

Duncan can be carried over while looking for another case which will define the “arms” issue. And as noted in my analysis there are district splits on the issue (although some may be in preliminary stages at this time.)

Or, SCOTUS could cert DUNCAN and resolve all of this.

 

[Dvrjon]

As I posted, California has made a magazine a REQUIREMENT for a handgun to be rostered, sold and used as intended. IF it is just a unnecessary "accessory", as is currently being pled...

They CANNOT have it both ways, but they are hoping SCOTUS will give them cake and let them eat it too. We can only hope that SCOTUS has been busy preparing a different dish... or perhaps waiting for a clear circuit split that will end the schizophrenic CA view of guns?

While I agree with you, I don’t recall that argument being raised in the past 10 years’ of court maneuvers.

As such, I don’t think it can be argued now, out of the blue.

 

[adrkwan]

While I agree with you, I don’t recall that argument being raised in the past 10 years’ of court maneuvers.

As such, I don’t think it can be argued now, out of the blue.

Wasn’t that the crux of VanDyke’s video dissent in Duncan?

 

[DB>)>]

I'm only about 1/4 into the opinion, but it seems quite obvious this is a "warmup" to stop criminalization of a Constitutional RIGHT, legally practiced. There is MUCH at stake here.

Hawaii wants to make "property rights" (arguably something important to protect) "superior" to the 2A - if that position was to be held or passed, without the clarification that Wolford is clearly stating, that such position is WRONG... the Republic and the Constitution is DEAD.

Gun laws typically create a HUGE class of "new felons" overnight with their passage and passing into the law books of anti-gun states.

SCOTUS has repeatedly restated that the right to self defense and "keep and bear" is NON NEGOTIABLE.

Law abiding gun owners are not the "crime problem" that criminalizing inanimate objects that have a long standing legal use, is the "answer" to.

 

[DB>)>]

While I agree with you, I don’t recall that argument being raised in the past 10 years’ of court maneuvers.

As such, I don’t think it can be argued now, out of the blue.

Well, I still have a tiny bit of faith that SCOTUS judges can introduce arguments as they see fit as part of their "opinions"... hopefully someone whispers in a couple ears!

The fundametally contradictory positions in black letter law as it currently stands, certainly create a problem for CA in the Duncan case. SO far from what I've read in the Wolford opinion, SCOTUS is growing weary of the shenanigans of the 9th... and is calling out their "creative interpretations" of law.

 

[Dvrjon]

Wasn’t that the crux of VanDyke’s video dissent in Duncan?

Magazine Disconnect Mechanisms (MDM) have not, to my knowledge, been at issue during arguments.
Judge Van Dyke’s video doesn’t address them, and shouldn’t address them, as he would be testifying as to issues which are not a part of the record.

Plus, here’s his video. If you can find it, cite a time stamp. But he never pulls the trigger to show the gun can’t fire without the mag.

 

[Dvrjon]

Well, I still have a tiny bit of faith that SCOTUS judges can introduce arguments as they see fit as part of their "opinions"... hopefully someone whispers in a couple ears!

I don’t think they can do that. That would be testifying to facts not presented. Judges judge. They can question the standpoints of the litigants to test the litigant’s arguments, but they cannot introduce new information that both parties have not had a chance to review and present arguments (briefs) for or against.