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

[Deleted member 16735]

If SCOTUS does take this case will we all be friends again and do a big Kumbaya?

 

[Ro-bo]

If SCOTUS does take this case will we all be friends again and do a big Kumbaya?

Getting it there seems unlikely given its treatment is following the same path of Snopes (multiple relistings = diminishing chance to accept the petition).

Setting that aside, the questions being presented to scotus couldn't be any more ripe. As pointed out in the brief, there's a clear circuit split --some agreeing to the obvious that magazines are arms, thus covered under Heller/the 2A in general, and others saying the opposite. There's no other move on the game board but to weigh these two points of view and offer a path forward. Prior to Rahimi, I would've confidently bet the majority justices would see it our way. But with the exception of Thomas, the court took away some of Bruen's testosterone and left the other side a lot of wiggle room. The court probably wouldn't wholesale accept the position that magazines aren't part and parcel to firearms, therefore also are "arms". But that only clears the first hurdle. The true test is application of Bruen and it seems they want to be overly cautious with that to the point that they'd rather just ignore it all and let the lower court decisions hang and be a total mishmash of opinions.

 

[jag9953]

A reminder - The title of this thread is

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

If you post something that is completely unrelated, it may vanish - Fair warning


You all thought I was playing.

Please. I can’t even follow along with this anymore bc of off topic conversations.

 

[oneaudiopro]

I hope SCOTUS finally issues a ruling soon. I honestly don't know why this issue hasn't been taken care of in the lower courts. Most modern firearms won't even function without a magazine, not even as a single shot. smh

 

[Dvrjon]

I hope SCOTUS finally issues a ruling soon. I honestly don't know why this issue hasn't been taken care of in the lower courts. Most modern firearms won't even function without a magazine, not even as a single shot. smh

"A ruling soon..."

The Dec 5 Conference meeting on Duncan (and other cases) is to determine whether it should be heard. The result of that conference could be:

-Accepting another 2A case, or referencing the two cases already certified, and holding this case pending their result. (That would result in this case again being granted cert, having the cert vacated and the Court remanding the case back to the lower courts -- "GVR'd" -- which, since it's been GVR'd once and been in the system for nine years, i believe won't happen).
-Holding without decision or rescheduling
-Rescheduling for further discussion
-Granting Cert
-Denying Cert

Of these, the only "soon" decision we really don't want is Denial. But all of the others are decisions which will take more time in the process.

If accepted for Cert, the case will be heard within the next 7 months. Final Decisions on cases heard are handed down by late June.

Although the Conference is Dec 5 (a Friday), the results probably won't be immediately known.

 

[GoldensRule]

I hope SCOTUS finally issues a ruling soon. I honestly don't know why this issue hasn't been taken care of in the lower courts. Most modern firearms won't even function without a magazine, not even as a single shot. smh

No one has tried to prevent anyone from using magazines in their weapons. The issue at hand is magazine capacity.

SCOTUS must first decide to actually hear the case before a ruling can be issued. The way it works is, lower courts issue rulings and each side has the right to appeal those rulings, which is exactly what has happened in this case and why a petition for a writ of certiorari ( a formal request for a higher court to review a lower court's decision ) is currently on the SCOTUS docket for 5 December.

Of all the options with regard to the writ before SCOTUS, the only one that will result in a quick decision is if they deny the petition for a writ of certiorari, if that happens the decision by the 9th circuit court of appeals will stand as is and mag capacity in California will be limited to ten rounds.

 

[Misterclick]

I hope SCOTUS finally issues a ruling soon. I honestly don't know why this issue hasn't been taken care of in the lower courts. Most modern firearms won't even function without a magazine, not even as a single shot. smh

Let's not forget that in California they enforce a gun roster. To be on the gun roster the weapon must have a magazine disconnect....

 

[Dvrjon]

Let's not forget that in California they enforce a gun roster. To be on the gun roster the weapon must have a magazine disconnect....

While I’ve seen that argument a number of times, I don’t recall it in any of the pleadings in this case. But, as noted some pages ago, the State’s pleading says they modeled the mag ban on the lines of previous actions to control weapons (arms). Now they want the mags to be “accessories”.

State response (on Post 1), page 8:



Also, prior SCOTUS opinions spoke of “dangerous and unusual” weapons not being protected by 2A. “Unusual” has been understood to mean “not in common use”, and the measure of that has been millions of AR-15 platforms as well as >10-round magazines being owned by the populace, making them “in common use”. The State has no answer for that except to say that popularity isn’t the measure of common use. So they have flipped the narrative to a completely different concept of “unusually dangerous”. Since all firearms are dangerous, they now argue that unprotected “accessories” like LCMs make common firearms unusually dangerous. How would they determine this? A subjective evaluation by the state that LCMs allow an unusually high rate of sustained fire for firearms and should be regulated.

If that sleight-of-hand with language is endorsed by SCOTUS virtually everything you buy to attach to your gun (including enhanced triggers and sights) will be an accessory and may be regulated.

The elements of the Takings Clause in this case is another full discussion as it allows the government to force you to dispossess yourself of an item deemed “unusually dangerous” without compensation for your loss of property.

 

[Skilly]

To me the 'what is arms' argument that the state puts forward defies any well defined logic. They twist themselves into knots leveraging the argument. For a moment, lets look at the same argument playing out with Sanchez v. Bonta for Suppressors. Orals were heard at the 9th circuit last week and the claim remains that 'they are not arms' and therefore not afforded arms status under 2A...its worth a watch if you have a few minutes. It really plays out in both of these cases that the state is over reaching. One of the 3 judges pointed this out that the states logic does lead to banning anything that can even be associated with a gun. Overall, in this case, the states case presented very weak (embarrassingly weak). With the history or the 9th, I doubt they overturn, but it just continues to be a bad look for the courts.

With Duncan, the argument has run the course - both sides have applied their own reasoning, and ruling has resulted. This this just feels like something so ripe that SCOTUS has to rule on it. Kicking it back will do nothing to reinforce the rule of law; there is nothing left to do and leaving it as is, creates a lot of continued distrust in the process or the seriousness of SCOTUS on these issues.

 

[oneaudiopro]

While I’ve seen that argument a number of times, I don’t recall it in any of the pleadings in this case. But, as noted some pages ago, the State’s pleading says they modeled the mag ban on the lines of previous actions to control weapons (arms). Now they want the mags to be “accessories”.

State response (on Post 1), page 8:

View attachment 117432

Also, prior SCOTUS opinions spoke of “dangerous and unusual” weapons not being protected by 2A. “Unusual” has been understood to mean “not in common use”, and the measure of that has been millions of AR-15 platforms as well as >10-round magazines being owned by the populace, making them “in common use”. The State has no answer for that except to say that popularity isn’t the measure of common use. So they have flipped the narrative to a completely different concept of “unusually dangerous”. Since all firearms are dangerous, they now argue that unprotected “accessories” like LCMs make common firearms unusually dangerous. How would they determine this? A subjective evaluation by the state that LCMs allow an unusually high rate of sustained fire for firearms and should be regulated.

If that sleight-of-hand with language is endorsed by SCOTUS virtually everything you buy to attach to your gun (including enhanced triggers and sights) will be an accessory and may be regulated.

The elements of the Takings Clause in this case is another full discussion as it allows the government to force you to dispossess yourself of an item deemed “unusually dangerous” without compensation for your loss of property.

Like my dad used to tell me "If it weren't for attorneys, you wouldn't need one". That's pretty much the common thread among'st all these cases. Instead of reading the plain text of what is written in the constitution, legal scholars try to interpret what they "meant" instead. It's like trying to read someone's mind, impossible. How "dangerous AND unusual" all of a sudden changed to "unusually dangerous" I can't comprehend the lack of intelligence that allowed this to take place. OK......rant over.

 

[Experimentalist]

I haven't followed the discussion in intimate detail, apologies if this point has already been made.

It seems *vitally* central to the pro-second amendment argument to point out that the State of California has mandated that all new pistols must have a magazine disconnect in order to be added to the Roster.

Thus by legal edict these pistols will not function without a magazine inserted.

By California's legal edict magazines are an integral and essential element for the pistol to function. It will not go bang without it.

Doesn't this fully nullify the argument that magazines are accessories? By their own decree new pistols will not operate without them.

It's like saying the gas tank in my internal combustion engine car is an accessory. It won't run without it.

 

[oneaudiopro]

I haven't followed the discussion in intimate detail, apologies if this point has already been made.

It seems *vitally* central to the pro-second amendment argument to point out that the State of California has mandated that all new pistols must have a magazine disconnect in order to be added to the Roster.

Thus by legal edict these pistols will not function without a magazine inserted.

By California's legal edict magazines are an integral and essential element for the pistol to function. It will not go bang without it.

Doesn't this fully nullify the argument that magazines are accessories? By their own decree new pistols will not operate without them.

It's like saying the gas tank in my internal combustion engine car is an accessory. It won't run without it.

You are correct. There are some out there that say it’s not the magazine itself but the 10rd limited capacity. I say that is a totally arbitrary number. Who decided 10rds? Why not 2? Why not 12? That’s what the real question.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

You are correct. There are some out there that say it’s not the magazine itself but the 10rd limited capacity. I say that is a totally arbitrary number. Who decided 10rds? Why not 2? Why not 12? That’s what the real question.

Honestly think it's just a round number less that a standard magazine. It is indeed arbitrary

 

[Dvrjon]

I can't comprehend the lack of intelligence that allowed this to take place.

It isn’t the lack of intelligence. It is the collective mind of really smart lawyers working for anti gun groups seeking traction after Bruen.

If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. ~ Carl Sandburg.~​

The new version is, “If the facts and the law are against you, make up new facts.”

 

[Warpspeed]

I haven't followed the discussion in intimate detail, apologies if this point has already been made.

It seems *vitally* central to the pro-second amendment argument to point out that the State of California has mandated that all new pistols must have a magazine disconnect in order to be added to the Roster.

Thus by legal edict these pistols will not function without a magazine inserted.

By California's legal edict magazines are an integral and essential element for the pistol to function. It will not go bang without it.

Doesn't this fully nullify the argument that magazines are accessories? By their own decree new pistols will not operate without them.

It's like saying the gas tank in my internal combustion engine car is an accessory. It won't run without it.

I think the State would say they are a necessary accessory but an accessory nonetheless. And regulating their size / capacity is within the states right.

However, since Bruen, they need to show that these types of restrictions are in the "historical tradition of firearm regulation". That, they cannot do.

 

[Dvrjon]

You are correct. There are some out there that say it’s not the magazine itself but the 10rd limited capacity. I say that is a totally arbitrary number. Who decided 10rds? Why not 2? Why not 12? That’s what the real question.

No, it isn’t. If your argument hinges on the amount being arbitrary, the opponent will develop a “common sense” argument that dials in a specific cartridge count. How about 7 rounds or less? Historic revolvers had six rounds; the iconic 1911 carried 7. The FBI says gun fights are 3 rounds @ 3 feet for 3 seconds.

For example: The State’s 1-in-30 firearm purchase law was upended by the 9 CA. While it was being reviewed the legislature passed a law allowing 3-in-30 purchases even though the Court said (Page 8):



The anti’s are probing for the “common sense” “reasonable level” of restriction. This game of whack a mole will continue if the SCOTUS doesn’t shut down the regulation of magazines. The point has to be made that magazines are protected under the 2A and free from regulation. Otherwise it’s just a question of how small the antis can make magazines.

 

[Experimentalist]

I think the State would say they are a necessary accessory but an accessory nonetheless. And regulating their size / capacity is within the states right.

However, since Bruen, they need to show that these types of restrictions are in the "historical tradition of firearm regulation". That, they cannot do.

I would like to offer one definition of accessory:
a: an object or device that is not essential in itself but adds to the beauty, convenience, or effectiveness of something else

b: a thing of secondary or lesser importance : adjunct
From: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accessory

The term "necessary accessory" is self-contradictory, as the very definition of accessory includes "Not essential in itself".

The legal realities of this State make magazines both necessary and essential to the function of any new pistol added to the Roster.

Given this reality any argument that magazines are accessories is thus invalid.

 

[couragewolf]

I think the women all syncronously moaning was probably the more appropriate scene to reference

 

[Deleted member 16735]

I think the women all syncronously moaning was probably the more appropriate scene to reference

Wayy too hot for these middle aged men. But also I couldn't find it in the GIF search bar

 

[Skilly]

I would like to offer one definition of accessory:
a: an object or device that is not essential in itself but adds to the beauty, convenience, or effectiveness of something else

b: a thing of secondary or lesser importance : adjunct
From: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accessory

The term "necessary accessory" is self-contradictory, as the very definition of accessory includes "Not essential in itself".

The legal realities of this State make magazines both necessary and essential to the function of any new pistol added to the Roster.

Given this reality any argument that magazines are accessories is thus invalid.

Well now you have gone and used logic. Dont confuse the states argument with facts!

Another great example is the state using special math (aka 'girl math') in the same argument for Suppressors. They note them as 'not arms' and can therefore be regulated. That this same 'accessory' is regulated as an arm by the NFT and until recently required a tax stamp and registration as a firearm.

I think I have heard them called 'alternative facts'.