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

[bbp00]

Anyone can plainly see that the 1791 amendment didn't remotely envision today's technology.

Neither did other amendments nor other rights whether enumerated or not.
Yet, 1st applies to modern means of communication, copyrights apply to digital media, freedom of travel applies to all common means of transportation, you have 4th amendment protections even if you have apartment on 20th floor of high-rise building or if you're living in a RV.

We gun owners and advocates need to stop playing the victim card and start looking at the innocent people who have become the victims of modern firearms technology and become part of a solution instead of just trying to thwart every attempt to mitigate the carnage.

How about you lead by example. Get rid of your modern firearms and get a musket.

 

[SomeOne]

We gun owners and advocates need to stop playing the victim card and start looking at the innocent people who have become the victims of modern firearms technology and become part of a solution instead of just trying to thwart every attempt to mitigate the carnage.

Are we blaming criminals or unanimated objects? Also, do you suggest that anything not printed on the paper does not get free press protection, because it didn't exist back in the days?

 

[Jimi Jah]

The 1791 amendment had no restrictions. If there were any they would have been included.

Back in the 1800's one could own and use anything. Ships with cannons were legally owned and used. You could buy a Gatling gun if you had the cash. There were plenty of western towns that disallowed carrying a gun in town but those were local laws. You picked them up when leaving.

Restrictions began in the early 20th century. Concealed guns began to be banned. Then machine guns when Thompsons became popular with gangsters.

As usual the aim was to discourage criminal activity. The effect was to end law abiding ownership. The result was people that didn't commit crimes couldn't get or use them. Criminals, as usual ignored laws, that's why they are criminals. They don't obey gun laws.

 

[oneaudiopro]

Are we blaming criminals or unanimated objects? Also, do you suggest that anything not printed on the paper does not get free press protection, because it didn't exist back in the days?

Actually they are victims of crazed lunatics NOT firearms. It's easy not to get behind meaningless and ineffective laws that were enacted with nothing more than feelings and emotions. Look at how many anti 2nd amendment laws that are on the books that have ZERO affect on crime. smh

 

[grandpapeepap]

Maybe so but solid evidence isn't easy to get here. So many mailed out ballots end up not getting in voter's hands. Mail in ballots were tried in many other countries including France. They stopped doing that because of fraud.

I recall the Orange County house election back in the 1980's when Loretta Sanchez "won" the seat from long time republican Bob "B1" Dornan. There were about 900 illegal alien votes cast. The lawsuit was dismissed because the judge determined it wasn't enough to change the outcome.

Other countries require voter ID as well. Mexico issues a fraud resistant voter ID card to prevent voter fraud.

Here, it's on the honor system. Unfortunately some are more honorable than others.

Bob Dornan won in 1980 then ran for the senate after that? Do you mean in the 90s ? What solid evidence is there again. Also it was the house oversight committe that dropped it as well not just a "judge"

And that in fact the Oversight Committee's suspected illegal voter list still "contain[ed] a significant number of names whose Orange County Voter Records indicate that they were born in the United States...."

 

[treelogger]

Here, it's on the honor system.

That is false. The registrars of voters use a variety of databases and publicly available information to validate that voters are eligible to vote. Including validating against USCIS records, DMV records, and the social security database. So there is way more than the honor system. It is quite common for voter registration of non-citizens to be rejected. You should volunteer in the registrar of voter's office sometime, to see the systems, before regurgitating worn-out talking points.

But none of these checks are completely tight, because in the US there is no such thing as "registration" of individuals. To begin with, most registrars of voters really like to err on the side of caution, since disenfranchising legal voters would be the worst possible outcome. In most other countries, a resident has to "register" as a resident, and that registration is initially based on birth certificate or immigration/naturalization paperwork, and then tracked as people move from registration to registration. In the US, you can move to another address in the same city, or a different city in the same state, or to a different state, without having to notify authorities. If you want to drive, you have to get a DL, but walking is an option, and failing to update the DL is only enforced when caught in a traffic violation. Data from tax returns and tax withholding (which is the most complete set of residency data available to the government) is intentionally not cross-checked against voter/DMV/SSN/... registration, because of the US's long-standing tradition of not liking nor trusting our own government. So once in a while, non-citizens may slip through and vote. In particular if they have common names: Jose Gonzales in a place like Salinas or El Centro will have an easier time there, because there are dozens of people with the same name and similar birth dates.

 

[Ro-bo]

Please understand, the ultimate goal of the gun control lobby is total disarmament. They aren’t interested in Heller, MacDonald or Bruen.

Forty or so years ago I was a fly on the wall in meetings with the fathers of CA gun control Dave Roberti and Mike Roos. They, and the supporters in the room, considered the CA Assault Weapon Ban “a start”. From what we’ve seen added to the books since then (precursor parts anyone?) they weren’t kidding.

I wouldn't call either of those two clowns the fathers of anything. The lead up to prop 15 predated their meddling by a decade, and that stemmed a lot from Feinstein being a vocal advocate of local (to SF) gun control at the time. Besides that, Mike Roos and David Roberti had very different visions of what an "assault weapon" ban would entail in each of their respective proposals. In the end, the only reason we didn't get Roberti's version (which was similar to what would become SB23 a decade later), was because Roos's bill was more palatable to so-called moderates of both parties, who were sympathetic to the cause. That was further enhanced by Deukmejian's handshake with Roberti to allow the state AG to petition to add look-a-like guns to future "improvements" of the final compromise bill. In other words, the stage was set long before Roberti and/or Roos tendered their bills for consideration. It was a foregone conclusion that *something* would pass with overwhelming concurrence from both houses. The details were secondary because both parties signaled that they were on board for that something.

That's the big difference between then and now. There used to be some level of debate and bargaining in the legislature, even when it ultimately led to passage of bad but not terrible laws, whereas now with the supermajority, it's just a rubber stamp event to pass any and all anti-gun bills.

None of that matters anymore except maybe to illustrate the futility of investing ourselves, our issue, into politics. What it will take to win is growing our base of support to a level that makes it hard for elected officials to get behind other stupid gun bans without pissing off someone from whom they need a vote. Right now, we as gun owners can be ignored with total impunity. Been that way forever.

 

[Ro-bo]

Huge bummer, but on Wednesday 11/12/25 SCOTUS changed the docket from Nov 21st to "Rescheduled". https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-198.html I hope they don't do what they did to the Ocean State case.

Came here to mention this. The chances begin to dwindle greatly every time this happens to a petition. We seem to be on track for disappointment yet again. At this point, failing to get this controversy in front of the high court for this long, this many times, can be interpreted as tacit support for letting these restrictions stay. Or at least that's how hostile entities are going to view this.

 

[Jimi Jah]

That is false. The registrars of voters use a variety of databases and publicly available information to validate that voters are eligible to vote. Including validating against USCIS records, DMV records, and the social security database. So there is way more than the honor system. It is quite common for voter registration of non-citizens to be rejected. You should volunteer in the registrar of voter's office sometime, to see the systems, before regurgitating worn-out talking points.

But none of these checks are completely tight, because in the US there is no such thing as "registration" of individuals. To begin with, most registrars of voters really like to err on the side of caution, since disenfranchising legal voters would be the worst possible outcome. In most other countries, a resident has to "register" as a resident, and that registration is initially based on birth certificate or immigration/naturalization paperwork, and then tracked as people move from registration to registration. In the US, you can move to another address in the same city, or a different city in the same state, or to a different state, without having to notify authorities. If you want to drive, you have to get a DL, but walking is an option, and failing to update the DL is only enforced when caught in a traffic violation. Data from tax returns and tax withholding (which is the most complete set of residency data available to the government) is intentionally not cross-checked against voter/DMV/SSN/... registration, because of the US's long-standing tradition of not liking nor trusting our own government. So once in a while, non-citizens may slip through and vote. In particular if they have common names: Jose Gonzales in a place like Salinas or El Centro will have an easier time there, because there are dozens of people with the same name and similar birth dates.

There is no requirement to prove citizenship to register to vote here. The registars office does check for signatures to cast a ballot. There is a debate in DC to require proof of citizenship but that hasn't happened mostly because of democrat party opposition.

 

[oneaudiopro]

There is no requirement to prove citizenship to register to vote here. The registers office does check for signatures to cast a ballot.

In Calif they register you to vote when you obtain your DL. No proof of citizenship required.

 

[grandpapeepap]

In order to qualify to register to vote you must be a citizen of the united states here in california. Also they dont "register you to vote" at the DMV but ask if you would like to do it. And if you arent a citizen guess what happens.

 

[grandpapeepap]

https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voter-registration
The AB60 license looks different and has limits like that about voting, as well as the fact if they tried to do it by mail the county reaches out to them.

 

[SomeOne]

Actually they are victims of crazed lunatics NOT firearms. It's easy not to get behind meaningless and ineffective laws that were enacted with nothing more than feelings and emotions. Look at how many anti 2nd amendment laws that are on the books that have ZERO affect on crime. smh

Criminals are a problem. Not the tools they chose.

 

[Skilly]

In the case of magazines, the "intent" is to restrict the efficiency of firearms as it pertains to lethality. If one looks at the efficiency of firearms when the bill of rights was adopted and compare that to the efficiency of today's firearms, there are virtually no similarities. If one wishes to be an originalist with regard to the second amendment, one has to face the fact that today's weapons bear virtually no resemblance to the firearms of 1791 with the exception of a projectile being expelled from a barrel as a result of the detonation of an energetic material.

A semiautomatic weapon with a 10 round magazine is at least 1000x more efficient than a single shot, muzzle loading weapon. Even a single shot, bolt action weapon is exponentially more efficient than the weapons of 1791.

Firing 10 rounds from a muzzleloader long gun can take anywhere from 3 - 20 minutes depending upon numerous factors. In today's AR-15, the low end rate of fire is 700 rpm or ~12 rounds per second. With the muzzleloader, let's take the median of 10 rounds / 11.5 minutes which is roughly 1 round every ~70 seconds.
Then, let's be generous and say it takes 5 seconds to swap magazines in an AR-15 (the number is closer to 1 - 2 seconds), that means you can still fire 20 rounds in ~7 seconds compare that to a muzzleloader rate of fire of 20 rounds in 1400 seconds.

Anyone can plainly see that the 1791 amendment didn't remotely envision today's technology. I haven't even begun to explore the aspect of increased efficiency associated with insanely improved range and accuracy.

The people who are advocating these modern laws aren't trying to take away people's right to self defense. IMO, they are trying to reduce the extent of the carnage which can be inflicted by modern weapons (in a given period of time) while still ensuring people can defend themselves. To the best of my knowledge, no one is attempting to restrict the number of magazines or rounds we can carry on our person.

We gun owners and advocates need to stop playing the victim card and start looking at the innocent people who have become the victims of modern firearms technology and become part of a solution instead of just trying to thwart every attempt to mitigate the carnage.

Ah the ole Musket defense. There were rapid fire weapons long prior to 1791 so not sure it was a complete blind spot to the Founding Fathers. It would be more fair to say that it was a different time where having arms was a matter of survival and practicality less so than it might be today.

That said, where does the line get drawn in being "part of the solution"? 10 rounds, banning of ARs (since to many of these legislators they are "weapons of war"), doubling the tax on bullets and DROS background checks for the same..maybe they start DROS for mags? The list goes on, with many more bills passed into law this year. Where is the good faith on the other side of this finding middle ground for an enthusiast? This isn't entirely about self defense; not sure there are many EDCs with 30 round PMags.

Also, this is a lot of focusing on the wrong thing and that might be the point of these "victim card" moments you point out. Standard capacity mags are most certainly more lethal when they are used in gun violence but (thankfully) they are surprisingly insignificant on the grand scale of US reported gun death homicides. There are so many other areas to focus on if you really want to be a 'part of the solution'.

 

[treelogger]

There is no requirement to prove citizenship to register to vote here.

False. Right near the top of the form, it asks whether you are a citizen. And then you have to swear and sign (under oath) that you are a citizen, that you are eligible to vote, and that you reside in the place given as home address.

And as I said above: the registrar will do a reasonable effort validating this information.

In Calif they register you to vote when you obtain your DL. No proof of citizenship required.

Also false. This is only done if you state under oath that you are a citizen.

And the question whether someone is eligible to vote (and register to vote) is actually surprisingly complex. To begin with, there is no simple form or piece of paper that says "John Doe is a citizen and allowed to vote". The birth certificate isn't it, because not everyone born in the US is also a citizen. The driver's license isn't it, since non-citizens who are legally in the country can also get it. The US passport comes pretty close, but there are some unusual categories of people who are not US citizens but have a US passport (those are called US nationals and can't vote in the US).

Furthermore, all this talk is a false flag operation anyway. The number of non-citizens voting (by committing voter fraud, which is a serious crime) is very small.

 

[BOLT1908]

If you are really advocating that CA has secure elections….your crazy. Sorry….not true.

A lady was arrested for registering her dog and voting for him. She was only caught cause she posted it on social media.

There are ways to cheat and register. People are coached. Don’t be someone who says that’s a lie just cause you hate the color red.

We need to separate from the red and blue garbage. This is our country….stop getting behind a political party and voting our rights away.

Voter ID is a must. You gotta show it in the store for alcohol/tobacco/firearms…heck. Even NyQuil…

If someone is advocating that there is no need for voter ID…then go ahead and end it for everything else.

 

[Jimi Jah]

Not only is it easy to cheat with voting here, our state elections board has difficulty counting votes after an election. While other states are done early in the evening of election day some of California's results take days and sometimes weeks to finish tabulation.

It didn't used to be that way here when we had a two party system.

 

[couragewolf]

In the case of magazines, the "intent" is to restrict the efficiency of firearms as it pertains to lethality. If one looks at the efficiency of firearms when the bill of rights was adopted and compare that to the efficiency of today's firearms, there are virtually no similarities. If one wishes to be an originalist with regard to the second amendment, one has to face the fact that today's weapons bear virtually no resemblance to the firearms of 1791 with the exception of a projectile being expelled from a barrel as a result of the detonation of an energetic material.

A semiautomatic weapon with a 10 round magazine is at least 1000x more efficient than a single shot, muzzle loading weapon. Even a single shot, bolt action weapon is exponentially more efficient than the weapons of 1791.

Firing 10 rounds from a muzzleloader long gun can take anywhere from 3 - 20 minutes depending upon numerous factors. In today's AR-15, the low end rate of fire is 700 rpm or ~12 rounds per second. With the muzzleloader, let's take the median of 10 rounds / 11.5 minutes which is roughly 1 round every ~70 seconds.
Then, let's be generous and say it takes 5 seconds to swap magazines in an AR-15 (the number is closer to 1 - 2 seconds), that means you can still fire 20 rounds in ~7 seconds compare that to a muzzleloader rate of fire of 20 rounds in 1400 seconds.

Anyone can plainly see that the 1791 amendment didn't remotely envision today's technology. I haven't even begun to explore the aspect of increased efficiency associated with insanely improved range and accuracy.

The people who are advocating these modern laws aren't trying to take away people's right to self defense. IMO, they are trying to reduce the extent of the carnage which can be inflicted by modern weapons (in a given period of time) while still ensuring people can defend themselves. To the best of my knowledge, no one is attempting to restrict the number of magazines or rounds we can carry on our person.

We gun owners and advocates need to stop playing the victim card and start looking at the innocent people who have become the victims of modern firearms technology and become part of a solution instead of just trying to thwart every attempt to mitigate the carnage.

As the amendments were being written private citizens were employing Gatling guns and heavy mortars and cannons so I think the inferred intent is pretty established the nature of the point was that citizens should be able to sufficiently rise up against a tyrannical government using their own private arms. I actually think the argument that private citizens should be able to own nukes is more plausible in reference to the 2a than “we should prevent semi auto rifles from private ownership because they didn’t imagine such weapons back then” as an argument.

Intent behind the authoring of the document is everything and in this case it’s clear.

Here’s a pic of a tshirt from an actual website for the centrists in the crowd

 

[couragewolf]

Not only is it easy to cheat with voting here, our state elections board has difficulty counting votes after an election. While other states are done early in the evening of election day some of California's results take days and sometimes weeks to finish tabulation.

It didn't used to be that way here when we had a two party system.

Can you describe how it’s possible to cheat voting in California without voter fraud being easily detectable

 

[grandpapeepap]

If you are really advocating that CA has secure elections….your crazy. Sorry….not true.

A lady was arrested for registering her dog and voting for him. She was only caught cause she posted it on social media.

There are ways to cheat and register. People are coached. Don’t be someone who says that’s a lie just cause you hate the color red.

We need to separate from the red and blue garbage. This is our country….stop getting behind a political party and voting our rights away.

Voter ID is a must. You gotta show it in the store for alcohol/tobacco/firearms…heck. Even NyQuil…

If someone is advocating that there is no need for voter ID…then go ahead and end it for everything else.

And people in other states were caught voting for trump twice and getting caught or using their dead relatives to vote for trump. Facts over feelings crowd when you show them the facts still like to stick with their feelings. Like how you have to be a citizen to vote in california