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

[Jimi Jah]

The SC can be predicted to avoid taking on more cases than they should.

 

[Ro-bo]

Oh ye of little faith. Have you not heard of Hammv. Smith?

Nope. But as you say, it's an outlier, one that isn't even a 2A case, so that shouldn't be a surprise.

Now do these cases, all which had to do with magazine capacity:
Ocean State Tactical (denied)
Hanson v. DC (denied)
Harrel v. Raoul (denied)

The pattern of relisting any case isn't the only pertinent detail, it's that these specific cases all asking the same basic questions have been subject to it and ultimately denied. Yeah, I know. I like to keep a positive outlook to some degree but I'm not a person of faith, and you're right --I have none when it comes to this.

eta: There is the possibility that scotus takes an entirely different 2A case which obliquely addresses magazines bans by going much broader than answering the questions in Duncan. That would be ideal. If they walked back some of that "not trapped in amber" sentiment from Rahimi, it could potentially right the ship with respect to several different controversies all in one go. Not very likely but keeping with the "have some faith" theme, it isn't out of the question.

 

[Ro-bo]

It's a fool's errand trying to predict what SCOTUS will do, especially this SCOTUS.

Not really. They're pretty predictable. The game at the moment is to fast track cases which ask questions that pertain to weaponizing federal power, particularly in the executive branch. The flow chart is simple. If it checks that box, they'll hear it. If a case asks for clarity and questions misapplication of Bruen, it's destined for the trash heap.

They got priorities, man.

 

[Dvrjon]

Nope. But as you say, it's an outlier, one that isn't even a 2A case, so that shouldn't be a surprise.

Now do these cases, all which had to do with magazine capacity:
Ocean State Tactical(denied)
Hanson v. DC (denied)
Harrel v. Raoul (denied)

I already explained this to you on Dec 6, in Post 474 on page 24 of this thread. Here it is again, with some more in-depth source documentation.

Each of these cases had only progressed to the Preliminary Injunction phase. There had been no trials on the merits of the complaints and no full record developed. There had been no preliminary, never mind a final judgment for the Court to review.

Ocean State Tactical was distributed 17 times before denial. The result:

In a brief unsigned order, the court denied the challengers’ petition for review. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch indicated (without more) that they would have granted the petition.

17 times and they couldn’t get cert because there was no case developed.

Hanson:

Hanson’s crew couldn’t even decide on what they wanted adjudicated.

Harrel:

Thomas put the flag in the ground. He couldn’t generate support for an empty PI case but clearly signaled upon final judgement that the Court must act.

Right now, Duncan is positioned with not one, but two Final Decisions (pre-Bruen and post-Bruen). It has won at the district and the appellate panel levels each time. It has lost en banc each time. The Justices have a huge, fully-developed case with an obvious pattern which demands scrutiny at their level. Those are the positives for this case.

Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch are teed up. They just need a fourth to start.

 

[GoldensRule]

Not really. They're pretty predictable. The game at the moment is to fast track cases which ask questions that pertain to weaponizing federal power, particularly in the executive branch. The flow chart is simple. If it checks that box, they'll hear it. If a case asks for clarity and questions misapplication of Bruen, it's destined for the trash heap.

They got priorities, man.

The priority for at least two of them is maximizing the amount of graft and bribes they can take in and, the highest bidder wins whatever decision they desire from those two.

 

[GoldensRule]

The SC can be predicted to avoid taking on more cases than they should.

And I predict they will all deposit their paychecks. Neither prediction is very relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

I think it's very predictable what those three justices would decide on these cases by ACB and Kavanaugh have both expressed in recent cases that they think there are limits to the 2a, including in Bruen where Kavanaugh stated explicitly that the state CCW permitting processes were to remain in place. Remember that these cases are saying "can a state regulate these items" vs " can any state allow these items". So we have no idea what will happen until it happens.

 

[Deleted member 31158]

Each of these cases had only progressed to the Preliminary Injunction phase. There had been no trials on the merits of the complaints and no full record developed. There had been no preliminary, never mind a final judgment for the Court to review.

Ocean State Tactical was distributed 17 times before denial. The result:


Hanson:
View attachment 124808
Hanson’s crew couldn’t even decide on what they wanted adjudicated.

Harrel:
View attachment 124803
Thomas put the flag in the ground. He couldn’t generate support for an empty PI case but clearly signaled upon final judgement that the Court must act.

Right now, Duncan is positioned with not one, but two Final Decisions (pre-Bruen and post-Bruen). It has won at the district and the appellate panel levels each time. It has lost en banc each time. The Justices have a huge, fully-developed case with an obvious pattern which demands scrutiny at their level. Those are the positives for this case.

Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch are teed up. They just need a fourth to start.

And it probably won’t be Barrett, she’s a CINO (conservative in name only). *gasp* maybe Roberts will get off his lazy backside and actually make himself useful! But that would require actually doing something, which he avoids at all costs.

 

[Horseman]

View attachment 110438

Haaa

 

[Dvrjon]

Orders List for Dec 12 Conference is out. Duncan is not on it. No Cert; No Denial. We’ll see within a day if it’s re-listed.

 

[adrkwan]

And it probably won’t be Barrett, she’s a CINO (conservative in name only). *gasp* maybe Roberts will get off his lazy backside and actually make himself useful! But that would require actually doing something, which he avoids at all costs.

I thought she has only had one 2A opinion (dissent) and it was pro-2A - Kanter v. Barr?

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

Orders List for Dec 12 Conference is out. Duncan is not on it. No Cert; No Denial. We’ll see within a day if it’s re-listed.

01/09/2026

 

[adrkwan]

01/09/2026

No Christmas miracle....

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

No Christmas miracle....

Ain't that the truth.

 

[Skilly]

where does the date come from? The docket is still not updated: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-198.html

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

where does the date come from? The docket is still not updated: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-198.html

Next possible, I don't think there is a conference for next Monday.

 

[Dvrjon]

Next possible, I don't think there is a conference for next Monday.

Yup. Nothing on calendar until 1/9/2026: Court calendar.

But, we need to wait to see that it’s there.

 

[M_N04H]

Pain in the a$$

 

[Deleted member 31158]

I thought she has only had one 2A opinion (dissent) and it was pro-2A - Kanter v. Barr?

I wasn’t talking about only 2A. Barrett tends to lean left, she’s not Jackson or Sotmayer far left, but she’s also not Alito or Thomas right. In other words, she calls herself a ‘conservative’ but is in reality a wildcard. I still don’t know why Trump nominated her, but I’m sure he had his reasons.

 

[Ro-bo]

I already explained this to you on Dec 6, in Post 474 on page 24 of this thread. Here it is again, with some more in-depth source documentation.

Thanks but I didn't need it explained to me the first time. I'm well aware of how it works and it's not a hard fast rule anyway (as has been pointed out by me, SCOTUS can very well fast track cases if they see fit). My point was, you dug up an unrelated 8th amendment case that was relisted a bazillion times before being heard to tell me to hold out hope. I'm pointing out myriad of evidence that scotus doesn't seem very interested in the actual 2A issue in a very broad sense, no matter the technical details, procedure or otherwise.

That's to mean, look at the big picture. Look beyond Duncan.

Regardless, it's a numbers game and we know that seeing a case relisted a bunch of times isn't a good sign that scotus will grant the petition review. That's just a fact.