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

[MK6M9]

you could use this website to organize a meetup in real life you know. people have done it already for group shooting ect. but its okay, you are trying your best

i can not even get anyone to sell me a gun on here (as they go out of their way to message me about it and all) let alone anyone here getting involved with me and this stuff

 

[MK6M9]

i am active in my local meetings and townhalls like i said earlier. but you are doing your best so im happy for you

i seriously thank you for this. it means a lot

 

[-D.M.-]

Nonsense. Turnout in primary elections is typically lower than in general elections, but the last primary was still in the 30-50% range in California. In general elections, it tends to be 60-80%. Turnout is traditionally higher among older voters, and among republican voters.


Underhanded or outright illegal? You think the results are due to vote suppression? Sorry, but that is also nonsense in California. And if by "us" you mean republican voters (seems plausible on a gun forum, where people tend to think that interest in guns is synonymous with voting R), then it is flat out wrong: turnout is higher among R. Sadly, it is true that California is now also participating in the game of gerrymandering, which seems to have become a national pastime. Sadly, it is not illegal.


That I agree with: We need to reduce the influence of the fringe on the political system, by having centrist people participate more.

Turnout at the local level in my areas for seats, bills and new proposals was anywhere from 1-15% of eligible voters. And 30-50% is still pretty f*cking dismal, I'm more inclined to believe the 30% number from what I read before it fell out of the cycle. I'll be shocked if 60-80% turn out for the general.

Yes, there is suppression, staring with gerrymandering all the way down to what I've seen people do at the street level with having blitzed-out addicts and bums sign voter registration cards. Any guesses who the skels and bums "voted" for? Care to guess further the political agenda of the people those bums and skels "voted" for is? That you are willing to dismiss it outright just because it's commiefornia is really kind of sad. It's also become far too easy to get the low-iq useful idiots to routinely vote against their own interests. To hell with voter ID, I'm thinking we need a god damned IQ test to register to vote.

And by "us", I meant the 2A community. Especially here in commiefornia-stan, we're so used to be handed losses that a lot of us have straight given up. The smarter ones have left. Because the entire system is against us. I'm not democrat or republican. If anything, I'd guess I'm closest to right-leaning libertarian. I'd also assume the vast majority of the 2A community is some form of republican as well.

It's become too commonplace for "centerist" voters to just tune out, specifically because of the frothing fringe. And there's so much misinformation floating around the internet about guns, gun owners, and the entire 2A community (gee, I wonder who put that out there...) we're constantly fighting from behind.

 

[Dvrjon]

Back to DUNCAN and SCOTUS for a break.

The court has identified Thursday as an opinion day. They continue to drop Opinions daily, issuing one yesterday and 5 today. (No 2A cases as of 3 PM EDT)

After opinion announcements on Thursday, the justices will meet in a private conference to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review.

There are 38 cases pending cert that will be reviewed. Of those, 5 are 2A cases with more than one relisting: Please see: https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/petitions/

//////////
Grant v. Higgins
Question Presented
Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the AR-15.

National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont
Question Presented
Whether a ban on the possession of AR-15-style rifles and firearm magazines with a capacity in excess of 10 rounds violates the Second Amendment.

Viramontes v. Cook county
Question Presented
Whether the Second and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.

Duncan v. Bonta
Question Presented
(1) Whether a ban on the possession of exceedingly common ammunition feeding devices violates the Second Amendment; and
(2) whether a law dispossessing citizens, without compensation, of property that they lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the takings clause.

Gator’s Custom Guns, Inc . v. Washington state
Question Presented:
Whether ammunition feeding devices with the capacity to hold more than 10 rounds are “Arms” presumptively entitled to constitutional protection under the plain text of the Second Amendment.

/////////
So, there are cases on AR platform possession including with/without LCM ban considerations; and bans on LCMs, one of which implicates the Takings of LCMs without compensation. Taking any case with an LCM component would appear to require that they hold any other case with LCMs

Next Monday’s Orders may be fun….

 

[adrkwan]

I'm guessing they take Duncan which has a broader question re magazines and takings, and one of the AR15 2A/14A cases.

 

[Dvrjon]

I'm guessing they take Duncan which has a broader question re magazines and takings, and one of the AR15 2A/14A cases.

Yeah, I’m leaning that way.

I don’t think they want to address the takings issue, so the calculus of which case to take gets complex. It would seem Duncan would provide the best out. If the mag prohibition is overturned, then the takings issue is moot and won’t be addressed. If they take any of the other mag-containing cases, and it wins, then they’re stuck with the orphaned takings of Duncan. So, they may as well run Duncan from the outset.

 

[adrkwan]

Yeah, same thoughts. I thought they framed the question in Duncan better to potentially capture other cases with different mag capacity limitations. Big fan of Murphy and Clement so far during oral arguments. Didn't realize they left Kirkland because the firm didn't want to take on anymore 2A cases.

 

[Dvrjon]

,

Yeah, same thoughts. I thought they framed the question in Duncan better to potentially capture other cases with different mag capacity limitations. Big fan of Murphy and Clement so far during oral arguments. Didn't realize they left Kirkland because the firm didn't want to take on anymore 2A cases.

They left because the firm told them to drop their current 2A clients or walk. They walked. (Apparently, the announcement was made on the day SCOTUS ruled on Bruen - Clement argued against the state with Murphy as second chair).

Personally, watching Murphy at the 9 CA hearings, she scares the crap out of me. Her mind is so quick and responsive, it’s hard to follow because she drops the bomb and is on to the next target. Often, it feels like she’s running a seminar for the judges, and they are working hard to take notes.

 

[adrkwan]

,They left because the firm told them to drop their current 2A clients or walk. They walked. (Apparently, the announcement was made on the day SCOTUS ruled on Bruen - Clement argued against the state with Murphy as second chair).

Personally, watching Murphy at the 9 CA hearings, she scares the crap out of me. Her mind is so quick and responsive, it’s hard to follow because she drops the bomb and is on to the next target. Often, it feels like she’s running a seminar for the judges, and they are working hard to take notes.

Ouch, glad they stuck by the clients. Murphy was great in Hemani.

 

[Dvrjon]

Ouch, glad they stuck by the clients. Murphy was great in Hemani.

Found the article: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/23/lawyers-gun-rights-supreme-court-00041909

“We were given a stark choice: either withdraw from ongoing representations or withdraw from the firm,” Clement said in a statement. “Anyone who knows us and our views regarding professional responsibility and client loyalty knows there was only one course open to us: We could not abandon ongoing representations just because a client’s position is unpopular in some circles.”

Gotta love the ethics.

 

[Jcwatchdog]

Back to DUNCAN and SCOTUS for a break.

Next Monday’s Orders may be fun….

We may know sooner. I heard that there is no orders list on Monday. It’s going to be released on either Thursday or Friday. Actually I may have heard in on the last Washington Gun Law video on this past Monday.

 

[Dvrjon]

We may know sooner. I heard that there is no orders list on Monday. It’s going to be released on either Thursday or Friday. Actually I may have heard in on the last Washington Gun Law video on this past Monday.

That may happen. But it would depart from actions of the past three years.

Last Day. Orders
Thursday. Mon.
6/26/25. 6/30/25
6/20/24. 6/24/24
6/22/23. 6/26/23

As noted above, Opinions can drop, and have been dropping, on weekdays in the past week. I’m sure we will see some which were finalized today being dropped tomorrow, and we will see some on Thursday and Friday.

Although Miscellaneous Orders can be issued daily, I doubt we will see a full Orders list issued on Friday, because SCOTUS has set Thursday as an Opinion Day. When completed, they will conference on a number of cases still pending, also discussed above. That doesn’t give staff time to generate the product for a Friday Orders List, and there is no reason to rush it.

 

[tenemae]

I heard that there is no orders list on Monday.

It is very common (always the case?) that days are added to the calendar for conferences/opinions/orders. Just because Thursday is listed as the last conference now, doesn't mean it will be listed as the last conference tomorrow. Only the tea leaves know for sure

SCOTUSblog

Independent news and analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court.

www.scotusblog.com

 

[MK6M9]

Back to DUNCAN and SCOTUS for a break.

The court has identified Thursday as an opinion day. They continue to drop Opinions daily, issuing one yesterday and 5 today. (No 2A cases as of 3 PM EDT)

After opinion announcements on Thursday, the justices will meet in a private conference to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review.

There are 38 cases pending cert that will be reviewed. Of those, 5 are 2A cases with more than one relisting: Please see: https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/petitions/

//////////
Grant v. Higgins
Question Presented
Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the AR-15.

National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont
Question Presented
Whether a ban on the possession of AR-15-style rifles and firearm magazines with a capacity in excess of 10 rounds violates the Second Amendment.

Viramontes v. Cook county
Question Presented
Whether the Second and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.

Duncan v. Bonta
Question Presented
(1) Whether a ban on the possession of exceedingly common ammunition feeding devices violates the Second Amendment; and
(2) whether a law dispossessing citizens, without compensation, of property that they lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the takings clause.

Gator’s Custom Guns, Inc . v. Washington state
Question Presented:
Whether ammunition feeding devices with the capacity to hold more than 10 rounds are “Arms” presumptively entitled to constitutional protection under the plain text of the Second Amendment.

/////////
So, there are cases on AR platform possession including with/without LCM ban considerations; and bans on LCMs, one of which implicates the Takings of LCMs without compensation. Taking any case with an LCM component would appear to require that they hold any other case with LCMs

Next Monday’s Orders may be
opinions? all thse will ithr b postpond or rjctd just like a coupl of thm hav ben alrady, for how many years now ?

opinions? all these will be postponed or rejected, just like a couple of them have already been-- for how many years now?

 

[Dvrjon]

opinions? all these will be postponed or rejected, just like a couple of them have already been-- for how many years now?

You really have no clue.
The cases I cited are under review for SCOTUS to hear them. That’s granting a Writ of Certiorari.
Opinions are rendered on cases which have been heard.

 

[Jcwatchdog]

opinions? all these will be postponed or rejected, just like a couple of them have already been-- for how many years now?

For the pending cert cases, in the past I’d maybe agree, but there’s no reason for them to have held this long to just deny. They may not grant cert outright on Thursday, but they’ll either hold until next term, or GVR when Wolford comes out (if something in Wolford applies, which it probably doesn’t unless it’s some overly broad and weird opinion). They’re probably waiting on the 3rd and Cheeseman, so they will maybe hold them over. If Cheeseman doesn’t go our way, then it’s almost hopeless.

 

[MK6M9]

The cases I cited are under review for SCOTUS to hear them. That’s granting a Writ of Certiorari.

right, which will take years. and also yes, a couple of those cases were rejected and then kicked back down to the 9th circuit and then appealed again and sent back up. (shrugs) you seem not to realize the endless game that is played with these lawsuits and how they are designed to go on forever with stay orders. and junctons. what was that one lawsuit that went on forever and then finally a decision was made? oh yeah was it heller ? and look at what that lawsuit was about and how long that took, which still did not help us for anything

 

[grandpapeepap]

heller took 5 years? and it also had scalias opinion with the court about 2a being protected outside of militia service ? not sure what you mean by not helping. i want to say it also had something to do about locked containers but cali does skirt that one a bit i think but that could have been a different case

 

[Dvrjon]

right,

I thought you said you were done here? But thanks for coming by to express your agreement with me that you don’t know the difference between a Petition submitted to a court and an Opinion of the Court.

which will take years. and also yes, a couple of those cases were rejected and then kicked back down to the 9th circuit and then appealed again and sent back up. (shrugs) you seem not to realize the endless game that is played with these lawsuits and how they are designed to go on forever with stay orders. and junctons. what was that one lawsuit that went on forever and then finally a decision was made? oh yeah was it heller ? and look at what that lawsuit was about and how long that took, which still did not help us for anything

But, to answer your question:

Heller:
How long did it take? 5 years; not “forever”
First filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on February 10, 2003, and concluding when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling on June 26, 2008.

What did it do?
The Heller decision ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes like self-defense, independent of service in a militia. The Court struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement to keep firearms nonfunctional in the home.

Why is that important?
For the first time in U.S. history, the nation's highest court clarified that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual citizen's right to own a gun for self-defense, fundamentally reshaping gun laws and future Second Amendment litigation.

And note, Heller wasn’t in the 9 CA which is widely recognized as the most corrupt federal Circuit Court of Appeals in the country. The long fight with Duncan has taken place because Duncan directly calls out and challenges the underpinnings of the judicial philosophy of that court.

 

[Skilly]

this feels like it took a turn....