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.

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!

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

Well this thread got off course… the simplest answer is Balkanization which the country is already seeming to do on its own. The Soviet Union collapsed before my time but look at how many nations came out of that seemingly overnight. One thing I hate about Newsom aside from the obvious is his comment he always touts “national divorce isn’t an option” Were in a failed marriage as a country and it shows in a lot of ways. Best you can hope for is a quick severance and a fast fall in standard of living to get people’s heads back to the reality of what is important in a functioning society. Anything else is just kicking the can down the road imho
I'll run for governor as a 2A 👨🏻‍🎨 on a platform of "tax the rich, repeal all gun bans" and get all the votes. Problem solved.
 
i apologize. do not let me insert logic and reality here and distract you guys. please continue with the delusions that this has gone anywhere in the last ten years or that it will go anywhere in the next-- except another ten more years of the same exact laws and bills passed, which is exactly what has been going on in the last ten years. (shrugs). comical
just so I understand, because it is not quite clear, what part exactly of this post was " Disrespectful or Uncivil Behavior ?"
 
i get the sarcastic part but the dismissive part? i am not allowed to think someone else's comment is not important? or is there another meaning to this? i mean, this site literally has an "roll eyes" emoji. is that not dismissive in itself? but it is okay, i see what is occurring with this.

anyway, i will move on
 
If you are looking for a post and can't find it, that means I deleted it.

Back on track please - if you demonstrate the lack of self control, you will lose the ability of posting in this thread.
Getting rid of mk6m9 from the whole california law and activism subforum would be a good start to keeping the threads more on-topic.
 
Actually, my real point is the following: I strongly suspect that MK6M9 is not advocating to "get rid of anti-gun legislator" using democratic and legal means (such as voting for pro-gun legislators), but instead by making holes in the current ones. For a whole slew of reasons that should be obvious, I think that this would be a very bad approach, and even advocating in its favor does serious harm to the cause of gun rights. In one thread, we nearly got MK6M9 to admit to this, and I'm trying to get him to stop just doing the "hint hint blink blink" and instead come out and show us his cards.
i have told you guys when i first came across this thread. go back a few pages
 
i get the sarcastic part but the dismissive part? i am not allowed to think someone else's comment is not important? or is there another meaning to this? i mean, this site literally has an "roll eyes" emoji. is that not dismissive in itself? but it is okay, i see what is occurring with this.

anyway, i will move on
Just a note, this particular sub-forum is even more strict than the others. Our mods have some freedom in their respective subject matter. This one is strict specifically for on-topic not too much off topic chat. Outside of this forum, we're a little more relaxed but we reserve this sub-forum for more decorum.
 
Just a note, this particular sub-forum is even more strict than the others. Our mods have some freedom in their respective subject matter. This one is strict specifically for on-topic not too much off topic chat. Outside of this forum, we're a little more relaxed but we reserve this sub-forum for more decorum.
i get that but i am not the only one in this topic, correct? i mean i can go back to those that were not deleted and give examples. that eye roll emoji is just one.
like I mentioned, i get what is going on here.

i will just move on
 
uh huh sure. but again, how was i off topic?
It was suggesting commentary outside of this particular one, not Duncan v Bonta, but talking about removing people when that isn't the purpose of this particular topic. There's quite a few lawyers and LEO (active & retired) in this thread who want to see this all the way through, even with our frustratingly annoying legislators. The main thing is they are more about process and following it through the system and also learning weak points in arguments.

This has been my interpretation watching this thread evolve. Occasionally, we get people who derail, but this one in particular is managed by another mod who made the request for a sub forum with less distractions.

We also are working on the site https://ca2a.com for a similar reason. Finding clear information is hard, so we try different things around the site in different sections.
 
For those wishing to track the activities of this case, I’ve updated Page 1 to reflect everything which has happened in the Court and between parties since Jun 30.

If you are looking for the process and current status, it’s there.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom