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

[Dvrjon]

To be clear, I wasn't advocating the state's position. I was merely pointing out what they've said in their response. The state has addressed *both* aspects (Bruen steps), so as I already mentioned, they aren't just banking on scotus agreeing that magazines fall outside the scope of the 2A by way of being accessories. Their argument on that point is weak. However with respect to "text, history and tradition", there's significant precedent now, post Rahimi, where courts have accepted very general historical analogues to justify terrible gun laws.

I didn’t think you were advocating for the state. But the outlining of the opposition’s claims without a countervailing balance of our side seemed to leave many unanswered questions. With respect to the text, history and tradition arguments of the State, our filings abundantly highlight their shortcomings over the past 9 years.

Of course this case should go forward. In all honesty, it should be settled already. But there is a risk that even the most favorable outcome if scotus takes it, might leave a lot of wiggle room for hostile parties to legislate right around the decision.

The difficulty is that the SCOTUS will always attempt to render a constrained decision so as not to dictate a broad swath of legal edict. That, of course allows anti-gunners to work around the edges to find another tack which veers into the fuzzy area around the line SCOTUS draws. What I’m hoping for is cert, then hearing, then a nuclear Decision along the lines of Dobbs which completely reworked the Roe v Wade landscape.

 

[Ro-bo]

The difficulty is that the SCOTUS will always attempt to render a constrained decision so as not to dictate a broad swath of legal edict. That, of course allows anti-gunners to work around the edges to find another tack which veers into the fuzzy area around the line SCOTUS draws. What I’m hoping for is cert, then hearing, then a nuclear Decision along the lines of Dobbs which completely reworked the Roe v Wade landscape.

This is where I'm at too.
No doubt, scotus likes to keep things nice and tight with narrow decisions... sometimes. But as you point out, Dobbs went really wide and had a massive ripple effect whether anyone agrees with it or not. And with the current administration, they've definitely shown a propensity to push decisions that greatly expand executive power, etc.

So, they certainly *can* go outside the norm if and when they want to. But judging by the latest few 2A cases they've agreed to hear over the last few sessions, it seems they're not willing to make big waves when it comes to gun rights --definitely nothing nuclear. But we'll see....

 

[mikeyr]

isn't there some law that starts in 2026 about buying/shipping parts ? so the SCOTUS says we can buy standard capacity magazines and Calif changes it to we can't buy any magazines. CA knows its fighting a losing battle but it does not care, every time it makes a unconstitutional law, it knows it will be decades before its shot down and they will just create a new one to fight for decades. If I am wrong about this new law then just ignore me, I gave up listening and trying to figure out the ways they try and stop me from shooting. I bought enough reloading materials to last me a good decade of twice a month shooting and bought all the guns I wanted when I could legally. That includes a bunch of standard capacity mags during freedom week, so I am not up to date on the new law that is coming but I thought it prevented buying parts like mags.

 

[Ro-bo]

isn't there some law that starts in 2026 about buying/shipping parts ? so the SCOTUS says we can buy standard capacity magazines and Calif changes it to we can't buy any magazines. CA knows its fighting a losing battle but it does not care, every time it makes a unconstitutional law, it knows it will be decades before its shot down and they will just create a new one to fight for decades. If I am wrong about this new law then just ignore me, I gave up listening and trying to figure out the ways they try and stop me from shooting. I bought enough reloading materials to last me a good decade of twice a month shooting and bought all the guns I wanted when I could legally. That includes a bunch of standard capacity mags during freedom week, so I am not up to date on the new law that is coming but I thought it prevented buying parts like mags.

Duncan isn't the only game in town though. If scotus accepts Duncan, that decision will shape nationwide policy no matter how it's decided. I realize this is CAguns, so our interests are very state level. But the national implication is what's really important. This goes beyond regulating magazines too, especially given the state's argument that magazines =/= guns. In other words, more is riding on this than meets the eye, just as Bruen was more than just about a focus on NY state carry laws.

 

[Dvrjon]

isn't there some law that starts in 2026 about buying/shipping parts ? so the SCOTUS says we can buy standard capacity magazines and Calif changes it to we can't buy any magazines.

If SCOTUS finds that magazines are arms and not accessories, they can’t be banned by the state.

CA knows its fighting a losing battle but it does not care, every time it makes a unconstitutional law, it knows it will be decades before its shot down and they will just create a new one to fight for decades. If I am wrong about this new law then just ignore me, I gave up listening and trying to figure out the ways they try and stop me from shooting.

If you gave up listening, then you gave up.

I bought enough reloading materials to last me a good decade of twice a month shooting and bought all the guns I wanted when I could legally. That includes a bunch of standard capacity mags during freedom week, so I am not up to date on the new law that is coming but I thought it prevented buying parts like mags.

They’ve controlled manufactured ammunition, but left reloading alone, for now. The State’s brief asserts that colonial times powder magazines were regulated, so how long do you think we have before they decide to control individual powder magazines?

If Duncan fails, all of your LCMs are criminal evidence, including Freedom Week and grandfathered mags from pre-2000.

CA PEN 32310(c), in part:

…any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, or is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

Are you listening, now?

 

[Dvrjon]

But judging by the latest few 2A cases they've agreed to hear over the last few sessions, it seems they're not willing to make big waves when it comes to gun rights --definitely nothing nuclear. But we'll see....

If you’re gonna drop a nuke, one doesn’t target a tiny fishing village on an outlying Ryuku Island. One looks for a large, highly populated target which will make an impact.

Duncan is that. We’ll have some more info tomorrow…..

 

[Deleted member 16735]

isn't there some law that starts in 2026 about buying/shipping parts ? so the SCOTUS says we can buy standard capacity magazines and Calif changes it to we can't buy any magazines. CA knows its fighting a losing battle but it does not care, every time it makes a unconstitutional law, it knows it will be decades before its shot down and they will just create a new one to fight for decades. If I am wrong about this new law then just ignore me, I gave up listening and trying to figure out the ways they try and stop me from shooting. I bought enough reloading materials to last me a good decade of twice a month shooting and bought all the guns I wanted when I could legally. That includes a bunch of standard capacity mags during freedom week, so I am not up to date on the new law that is coming but I thought it prevented buying parts like mags.

it doesn't ban parts and accessories it's on it's face intended to create a paper and subsequent liability trail for parts that get used illegally. But the requirements are Identification and delivery, so if a vendor wants to sell them to us mailorder they can still do it albeit with a bunch of very annoying requirements. The large vendors will likely still sell to us.

 

[SomeOne]

it doesn't ban parts and accessories it's on it's face intended to create a paper and subsequent liability trail for parts that get used illegally. But the requirements are Identification and delivery, so if a vendor wants to sell them to us mailorder they can still do it albeit with a bunch of very annoying requirements. The large vendors will likely still sell to us.

This is called an infringement. Make no mistake or excuse.

 

[GoldensRule]

This is called an infringement. Make no mistake or excuse.

The problem with being an originalist or a textualist when citing the 2nd amendment is, you open the door for further analysis of the entire amendment such as words like "Militia". Contrary to popular belief, states did have militias and their primary purpose was to put down slave rebellions. In no way did "militia" mean the entire citizenry of the nation. With the reversal of Roe V. Wade, the path has been opened for future SCOTUS benches to overturn cases like Heller and Bruen.

 

[Dvrjon]

The Orders from the 5 Dec Conference are published and Duncan doesn’t appear on them. It’s most likely being held for further review or awaiting results of other cases. We’ll have to wait to see what the new Docket status will be.

From SCOTUS BLOG:

When we say that “the Court did not act” on a particular case, that literally means that there is nothing in the order list about that particular case. But you can often learn more about the possible fate of the case as soon as later in the day.

When the Court is holding a case, that means that it is waiting to act on the case until some later, unspecified time. A “hold” does not appear on the order list; the case’s electronic docket simply will not reflect any further action. In most scenarios, a case is being held for one of two reasons: (1) the Court is already considering another case presenting a similar issue on the merits, and it believes that the resolution of that case could affect its decision on the held case; or (2) the Court is waiting for another petition for review, presenting a similar question, to be ready for it to consider. Unfortunately, the Court does not tell us why it is holding a case; although the reason is often fairly obvious, sometimes it can be harder to figure out.

When a case is “relisted,” that means that it is set for reconsideration at the Justices’ next Conference. Unlike a hold, this will show up on the case’s electronic docket. A relist can mean several things, including the fairly straightforward prospect that one or more Justices wants to take a closer look at the case; that one or more Justices is trying to pick up enough votes to grant review (four are needed); that the Justices are writing a summary reversal (that is, a decision that the lower court opinion was so wrong that the Court can decide the case on the merits without briefing or oral argument); or that one or more Justices are writing a dissent from the decision to deny review.

 

[Toshiro Mifune]

Kings and Queens, not shocked

 

[Jimi Jah]

The problem with being an originalist or a textualist when citing the 2nd amendment is, you open the door for further analysis of the entire amendment such as words like "Militia". Contrary to popular belief, states did have militias and their primary purpose was to put down slave rebellions. In no way did "militia" mean the entire citizenry of the nation. With the reversal of Roe V. Wade, the path has been opened for future SCOTUS benches to overturn cases like Heller and Bruen.

Language at that time had different meanings. A militia was a citizen's group, not the US Army. States without slavery did not concern themselves with slave rebellions. There is no mention of that in our founding documents, that is a modern, liberal interetation.

"Regulated" at that time meant prepared.

 

[Deleted member 6005]

Language at that time had different meanings. A militia was a citizen's group, not the US Army. States without slavery did not concern themselves with slave rebellions. There is no mention of that in our founding documents, that is a modern, liberal interetation.

"Regulated" at that time meant prepared.

It is also not a right of the militia. It is a right of the people.

 

[GoldensRule]

Language at that time had different meanings. A militia was a citizen's group, not the US Army. States without slavery did not concern themselves with slave rebellions. There is no mention of that in our founding documents, that is a modern, liberal interetation.

"Regulated" at that time meant prepared.

That is certainly what the NRA wants those words to mean but, when one educates oneself on the realities of of the 18th century, one finds that there were indeed organized and controlled / regulated militias. Not every person was a member of a militia.

There is far more to the history of the United States than one can find in our founding documents or the Federalist (Papers). For example, James Madison the author of the 2nd amendment owned over 100 slaves, Thomas Jefferson owned over 600 slaves during his lifetime and George Washington a total of over 300 during his.

There were numerous slave rebellions in North America, The Stono Rebellion in 1739, The New York Slave Revolt 1712, etc. These revolts and others were a major influencing factor in the development and inclusion of the 2nd amendment. See: Madison's Militia (2023) Carl T. Bogus.

The militias as a fighting force to repel invasion proved to be an abysmal failure during the war of 1812 but, they had a brutal and ruthless reputation of apprehending, torturing and executing escaped slaves.

 

[exnds]

Relisted for 12/12/2025

 

[Deleted member 16735]

The Orders from the 5 Dec Conference are published and Duncan doesn’t appear on them. It’s most likely being held for further review or awaiting results of other cases. We’ll have to wait to see what the new Docket status will be.

From SCOTUS BLOG:

Does this say conference 12/12?

Search

www.supremecourt.gov

 

[bbp00]

Does this say conference 12/12?

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/12/2025
Which is much better than outright denied.
Keep on mind SCOTUS is extremely busy with all lawsuits and orders against current administration. California alone has filed over 40 lawsuits against Trump.

 

[M_N04H]

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/12/2025
Which is much better than outright denied.
Keep on mind SCOTUS is extremely busy with all lawsuits and orders against current administration. California alone has filed over 40 lawsuits against Trump.

Yea that made me a little nervous

 

[couragewolf]

Thomas is the only sure thing. It's clear after Rahimi and the fallout in the lower courts re: the {mis}application of Bruen, that the rest of the so-called "conservative" justices believe the 2A is subject to a fair amount of limitation as individual states see fit. I want to be wrong, but I have little faith that just getting it to scotus is the only obstacle.

You reckon the “conservative” Supreme Court justices are concerned with the rights of individual California citizens not to be regulated by the Feds, or are they just more focused on the rights of California corporations not to be regulated?

 

[Lakersandguns]

hope they make the right decision