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

[treelogger]

In other news: Amy Howe of ScotusBlog just wrote the following comment:

In addition to Bannon’s case, the justices once again did not act on several cases challenging bans on assault rifles and large-capacity magazines. The court could be waiting to act on those petitions for review once it issues its rulings in a pair of gun-rights cases that the justices are currently considering on the merits. If so, a ruling on the disposition of those petitions might not come until late June or early July.

 

[treelogger]

We wrote messages at the same time ...

Whoever decided on the naming convention for the Courts did a horrible job.

On the contrary, they did a decent job making it confusing. Which I sometimes think is the whole point of legal language. They could have made it even more obscure by adding some latin words to it. Just this morning, when writing e-mails, I was looking for the word for "guardian ad litem" and it took a web search to remind me what it really means. Well, Claudius Aloisius Alceimerus strikes again.

 

[Dvrjon]

Regardless of which court status is involved in the Benson case, the next three plays are either: 1. Petition for Panel rehearing; 2. Petition for en banc hearing; or 3. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

Footnote 1 of the Decision makes this clear:

The District is thus a party, and has all the rights of a party, in this appeal. That includes the right to petition for rehearing, rehearing en banc, or certiorari in response to this opinion.

I doubt they’ll spend time asking for a Panel rehearing, and with the 2A clog at SCOTUS there doesn’t seem to be a reason to immediately jump to cert.

If they do nothing, their issue is dead, LCMs become legal in the District, and a precedent is set for that court. If they petition for [en banc] rehearing, the issue stays alive with the statute remaining in force, until the en banc review concludes. That will be well past July 1 and the time these pending SCOTUS 2A cases are resolved.

That makes Benson irrelevant while Duncan sits on the vine, ripening every day until it tumbles back down the GVR hill.

 

[Dvrjon]

We’ve filed a Supplemental Brief with SCOTUS making them aware of the Benson decision.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-198/400609/20260311150049523_2026-3-11%20Final%20Duncan%20supp%20br%20re%20Benson.pdf

I still doubt it will have relevance at this late date. Especially if an en banc review is requested/granted.

But, maybe it’ll tip the scales.

 

[Echidin]

The odds of SCOTUS granting cert on Duncan for next term are increasing.

 

[Dvrjon]

DC A.G. has petitioned for a stay of the 3 panel decision in Benson pending submission of an expedited request for en banc rehearing.

https://efile.dcappeals.gov/document/view.do?documentID=408386&csIID=67629


Expect this temporary suspension to be granted, and upon submission for rehearing, the en banc will rehear the case de novo. That should nullify the 3 panel decision and push the final decision on Benson out for some time.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

 

[Dvrjon]

View attachment 164392

You can have double stacks which are limited to < 10 rounds.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

You can have double stacks which are limited to < 10 rounds.

Of course, but I'm not spending double stack money if we are actually legally limited to 10 rounds! These cases are directly related to how much I'm going to spend haha

 

[DB>)>]

Justice delayed is justice denied... many of us will probably be dead and gone before they get around to upholding (or denying!?) our Constitutional rights. The wheels grind slowly...

 

[Dvrjon]

Bonta’s reply to Supplemental brief on Benson.

 

[DB>)>]

Typical BS to moot when you're LOSING...scumbaggery!!

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

Bonta’s reply to Supplemental brief on Benson.

View attachment 164822

 

[han_solo]

And that household number translates to significantly lower amounts of individuals that own and use firearms. It's a pretty hard sell to people who think guns are scary and dangerous to say we want laws that supposedly are about safety repealed. Like why would they be motivated to vote for that? These SC decisions are likely the only way we will get real magazines and pistol grips, but again it's very few people that actually care even outside of California

100 million is a lot of people dude ..

 

[Deleted member 16735]

100 million is a lot of people dude ..

I wish that many people cared but out of 77 million gun owners nationwide how many people live in a restrictive state and of those, what fraction actually shoot their guns and of those what fraction care about having 10 rounds? we are talking about way less than 10% of the population. It's not like I want it to be the case I want them to get this done, and fast.

 

[Deleted member 11316]

I wish that many people cared but out of 77 million gun owners nationwide how many people live in a restrictive state and of those, what fraction actually shoot their guns and of those what fraction care about having 10 rounds? we are talking about way less than 10% of the population. It's not like I want it to be the case I want them to get this done, and fast.

Magazines with over 10 round capacity is the national standard. This is a problem unique to California and the other states co-opting it.

Most people “don’t care” because they aren’t forced to comply.

California is an interesting political landscape. They make bad choices, wait ten years, the public finally realizes they messed up, they try to reverse it but the damage is already done.

I would cite Prop 47 “The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act”

All the liberals took the bait, hoping for a utopian fantasy that’s impossible to achieve, and spent the next ten years enabling crime. It had to get as bad as people looting stores, rampant smash and grab theft, open drug use, etc for the voters to finally realize wow maybe we messed up.

The homeless epidemic is another great example. Just wide open abuse of funds…lack of accountability. Billions of dollars with nothing to show for it.

The high speed rail, another great example.

I could literally go on all day.

California has an interesting problem with virtue signaling social justice warriors who vote against their own best interests because the name of a proposition sounds good, or a politician can wax poetic and appeal to their emotions.

It’s deliberate…trick people into destroying themselves so they need you more… narcissistic consumption. Emotional manipulation. “The Devouring Mother.”

What do the politicians get? Money and notoriety. The people get nothing and they are happy because they were “on the right side of history.”

I’m not from here, and where I’m from does not have this problem, nor does the vast majority of the rest of the USA. So why would anyone care??

California is making their bed. They will lay in it. It may take decades but they will find out the hard way it was a mistake one way or another.

 

[dvscycles]

California is making their bed. They will lay in it.

Unfortunately Kalifornia has made a bed I'm forced to lay in. At 73 years old it might just be my death bed.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Magazines with over 10 round capacity is the national standard. This is a problem unique to California and the other states co-opting it.

Most people “don’t care” because they aren’t forced to comply.

California is an interesting political landscape. They make bad choices, wait ten years, the public finally realizes they messed up, they try to reverse it but the damage is already done.

I would cite Prop 47 “The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act”

All the liberals took the bait, hoping for a utopian fantasy that’s impossible to achieve, and spent the next ten years enabling crime. It had to get as bad as people looting stores, rampant smash and grab theft, open drug use, etc for the voters to finally realize wow maybe we messed up.

The homeless epidemic is another great example. Just wide open abuse of funds…lack of accountability. Billions of dollars with nothing to show for it.

The high speed rail, another great example.

I could literally go on all day.

California has an interesting problem with virtue signaling social justice warriors who vote against their own best interests because the name of a proposition sounds good, or a politician can wax poetic and appeal to their emotions.

It’s deliberate…trick people into destroying themselves so they need you more… narcissistic consumption. Emotional manipulation. “The Devouring Mother.”

What do the politicians get? Money and notoriety. The people get nothing and they are happy because they were “on the right side of history.”

I’m not from here, and where I’m from does not have this problem, nor does the vast majority of the rest of the USA. So why would anyone care??

California is making their bed. They will lay in it. It may take decades but they will find out the hard way it was a mistake one way or another.

Yes the reasons are numerous, either way most people even in red states don't use guns. 22 percent of adults nationwide is a lot of people but nearly 4/5s of people don't have a horse in the race at all

 

[DB>)>]

The general population has been bombarded by lies and propaganda for so long (backed by LOTS of activist $$$$$$$), they don't know their donkey from a hole in the ground. And honestly the rather pathetic lack of cohesion on the pro 2A side, with a range from FUDDS to "gun nutz" mostly bickering and sniping at each other instead of the "enemy" doesn't help.

The SCOTUS just gutted the 4th amendment earlier this week (GOA posted about the case, as it does intersect with gun rights), 9-0 no less... Sotomayor, concurring, basically says guns are bad and should abrogate 4A rights of 2A exercising, law abiding gun owners, a more and more common governmental argument!

We are nearing the point when the instructions in the Declaration of Independence as to what should be done when the government no longer serves and respects the rights of "We the People" are looming larger... King George was pretty milquetoast if you read the list of grieveances in that foundational document!

 

[Deleted member 11316]

Yes the reasons are numerous, either way most people even in red states don't use guns. 22 percent of adults nationwide is a lot of people but nearly 4/5s of people don't have a horse in the race at all

Laws are mostly state level. At the federal level mag bans are all but rejected. The only reason it exists in California is because the state level politicians have no sovereignty in anything beyond their own self interests.

It’s not a popular opinion to ban magazine capacity. It’s not a normal or conventional thought. And it’s not likely something that will become a federal law.

Issue salience also exists. No one cares about what’s going on in California because they don’t live there.

The appeal process surrounding mag bans in California is not over. CRPA filed a
petition for certiorari a few days ago. It’s not even up to citizens anymore.