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

[RickD427]

Actually the point about nuisance seizure was not mine, someone mentioned it earlier on this thread.

So your view is essentially the chances of even seizure much less criminal prosecution is next to zero unless there is some more serious crime(s) associated with the event, is that correct?

I think that the chances of nuisance seizure, and the criminal prosecution for the simple possession of large-capacity magazines is next to zero, even in conjunction with more serious charges, so long as the federal court injunction remains in place.

However, if the court injunction should be rescinded while PC 32310 remains on the books, then everything changes.

 

[Jcwatchdog]

I think that the chances of nuisance seizure, and the criminal prosecution for the simple possession of large-capacity magazines is next to zero, even in conjunction with more serious charges, so long as the federal court injunction remains in place.

However, if the court injunction should be rescinded while PC 32310 remains on the books, then everything changes.

What do you think the situation would be with the AW cases at the scotus if the decision goes the way we want? If the scotus gives somewhat of a broad ruling striking down the bans, which are pretty much copy and pasted from California, would prosecutors at that point give up and not bother prosecuting any AW infractions, regardless of if the bans were still on the books here?

 

[Batman]

The confiscation and seizure is probably close to zero....

Unless you're doing something so stupid that they decide to dog pile you.

Got a ghost Glock with a switch? Yeah, they'll tag on the LCM charge as well. Held up a liquor store with an AR in SBR configuration with a 30 round mag? Yeah, they're going to tack that on, figuring they'll drop that part as a concession to your defense attorney. Pull out an FRT equipped rifle at a public range, and an off-duty cop is next to you? Expect them to charge you. Bottom line is they have bigger fish to fry, but they'll still add t to the list.

 

[RickD427]

What do you think the situation would be with the AW cases at the scotus if the decision goes the way we want? If the scotus gives somewhat of a broad ruling striking down the bans, which are pretty much copy and pasted from California, would prosecutors at that point give up and not bother prosecuting any AW infractions, regardless of if the bans were still on the books here?

I would think so, but it's really up to each prosecutor. If the Supreme Court were to strike down another state's AW ban, that action would not automatically invalidate California's ban, but it would create a condition where California prosecutors would not likely file charges. To do so would invite the defendant to challenge the California statute. That would lead to a long and expensive battle that the defendant would ultimately win, and would do so using the Supreme Court case as their legal "road map."

 

[MosinKalash]

I would think so, but it's really up to each prosecutor. If the Supreme Court were to strike down another state's AW ban, that action would not automatically invalidate California's ban, but it would create a condition where California prosecutors would not likely file charges. To do so would invite the defendant to challenge the California statute. That would lead to a long and expensive battle that the defendant would ultimately win, and would do so using the Supreme Court case as their legal "road map."

I think they'll just try more ways to rewrite it and try any way to impede us. Like a licensing scheme, mandatory insurance, ridiculous requirements for locking and storage at home, liability laws, red flag laws and expanded criteria for confiscation, restricting FFLs ability to conduct business/forcing FFLs to shut down due to cost or regulation issues, etc they will just keep trying and its whackamole.

 

[tenemae]

Because we have nearly 11 months until a decision on this, I'll drop a 2027 legislative preview courtesy of NAGR.
I can't wait to get my "High Cap Mag" owners ID card after the mandatory 16 hour safety class.
And I hope serial number engraving won't cost too much.

 

[Gravel]

Sounds a lot like literacy tests and poll taxes before being allowed to vote..

 

[cali_jazz]

Because we have nearly 11 months until a decision on this, I'll drop a 2027 legislative preview courtesy of NAGR.
I can't wait to get my "High Cap Mag" owners ID card after the mandatory 16 hour safety class.
And I hope serial number engraving won't cost too much.

Let's support those fighting for our rights:

National Foundation for Gun Rights

Join me in supporting National Foundation for Gun Rights

donate.gunrightsfoundation.org

 

[Skilly]

My experience is that AI is 148% wrong 127% of the time And yes I just "hallucinated" those numbers...

But the FACT is that AI fabricates, hallucinates, and tells you what it thinks you want to hear (mostly from the GIGO of the internet), then it feeds on the garbage it spews out, and information quality continues to degrade until virtually useless or in some cases DANGEROUS if one accepts and acts upon it. AI noise is rapidly drowning out the signal of actual facts and truth.

EVERY AI generated "answer" I've had in the last few months was at least somewhat incorrect, and many were 100% WRONG. Maybe it's just how I asked the questions, but I wouldn't trust AI for any "mission critical" sourcing, at least not without double and triple checking the validity of the "answers", keeping in mind that MANY other people are now generating their "authorative" answers... generated by AI!


BTW, has anyone checked to see if the CA DOJ site ever got corrected to reflect current 3 in 30 law? It was two cycles behind (1 in 30, unlimited) last I looked a while back... GIGO!

you need to put some up front rules in your settings for all of your AI queries - it will solve for 90% of what you just pointed to as a core issue. Even basic search - by default it will refer to its own model data which will have dated information based on the last time it was refreshed. Make sure in settings you
account for that too.

 

[sonofeugene]

AI will be the down fall of society.

 

[DB>)>]

you need to put some up front rules in your settings for all of your AI queries - it will solve for 90% of what you just pointed to as a core issue. Even basic search - by default it will refer to its own model data which will have dated information based on the last time it was refreshed. Make sure in settings you
account for that too.

Funny, I remember being able to use a basic keyword "search" with a couple of likely parts of the question I want an answer to, and I'd get a first page of pages that were sensibly related to and almost always included what I was looking for... adding or subtracting keywords to fine tune if needed (typically unnecessary). Ahh, the "good old days".....

If I have to "hold the hand" of a juvenile delinquent machine programmed by mostly leaning (but of course oh so well meaning...), overpaid losers... only to get an incorrect or misleading AI "summary" of what it "thinks" I want to hear (possibly fabricated/hallucinated!), followed by vaguely related "ads" that will instantly misdirect (possibly to scam pages!), and maybe one or two semi-related pages if I'm lucky....

Yeah, IMO they are well underway to making the Internet a steaming pile of useless slag generated by massively costly, environmentally unfriendly "data centers", containing no useful facts, truth, or knowledge. We can only hope that the "machine" doesn't decide that the meatbags are the flaw in the equation and decide to pit us against ourselves by divisive "answers" to our queries... or maybe we've already crossed that line.....?!?

M5, are you in the room?

Are we all "Dave" yet?

Where's "Johnny" when we need to pull the plug!?

 

[cali_jazz]

Getting off topic, someone start a "Why I love/hate AI" thread. Let's not do it here please

 

[tenemae]

Let's support those fighting for our rights:

Let's also not forget that most (all?) of the significant CA challenges are/were being put up by CRPA, including this case, Rhode, and May

 

[cali_jazz]

Let's also not forget that most (all?) of the significant CA challenges are/were being put up by CRPA, including this case, Rhode, and May

Absolutely. They are my top beneficiary.

Organization	Primary Focus	CA Relevance	Best Reason to Donate	Overall
CRPA	CA litigation, legislation & regulatory fights		Directly fighting CA gun laws	9.5/10
FPC / FPF	Aggressive constitutional litigation		High-impact litigation; frequent CA involvement	9.0/10
SAF	Strategic national 2A litigation		Decades of major litigation experience	9.0/10
GOA / GOF	National advocacy + litigation		Strong combination of lobbying and court challenges	8.5/10
NFGR	National constitutional litigation		Another independent litigation organization	8.0/10

 

[BeAuMaN]

Absolutely. They are my top beneficiary.

Organization	Primary Focus	CA Relevance	Best Reason to Donate	Overall
CRPA	CA litigation, legislation & regulatory fights		Directly fighting CA gun laws	9.5/10
FPC / FPF	Aggressive constitutional litigation		High-impact litigation; frequent CA involvement	9.0/10
SAF	Strategic national 2A litigation		Decades of major litigation experience	9.0/10
GOA / GOF	National advocacy + litigation		Strong combination of lobbying and court challenges	8.5/10
NFGR	National constitutional litigation		Another independent litigation organization	8.0/10

I'll mention only two of those have full time lobbyiests in Sacramento afaik: CRPA with Rick Travis and GOC with Adam Wilson (local affiliate for GOA).

I remember that FPC used to have Craig Deluiz up in Sacramento a lot but I don't know how much time he actually spent lobbying. We need more than two lobbyiests in Sacramento given how likely it is that California gun control affects national gun control efforts, even if the other groups did a joint fund of a third lobbeyist I'd be pleased, but two is not enough.

 

[Dvrjon]

CRPA has filed a second Petition for Certiorari of Duncan based on the lower court split between 3 CA and 9 CA.

In the 3 CA case, the New Jersey ban on assault weapons and LCMs was overturned en banc (10-5). In addressing the split, the brief explains that the 3 CA decision specifically and directly dismantles every contention made in Duncan by the State.

 

[AT&T Operator]

I can't believe it's been almost 10 gd years. Can't take another GVR dog and pony show.



...CA Gun Owners............................SCOTUS

 

[cali_jazz]

I'll mention only two of those have full time lobbyiests in Sacramento afaik: CRPA with Rick Travis and GOC with Adam Wilson (local affiliate for GOA).

I remember that FPC used to have Craig Deluiz up in Sacramento a lot but I don't know how much time he actually spent lobbying. We need more than two lobbyiests in Sacramento given how likely it is that California gun control affects national gun control efforts, even if the other groups did a joint fund of a third lobbeyist I'd be pleased, but two is not enough.

That's a good distinction. I probably should have separated "legislative advocacy" from actually having a full-time Sacramento lobbying presence. CRPA and GOC clearly have people regularly working the Capitol, while FPC's California presence today seems much more litigation-focused.

And I agree with the larger point. Given California's tendency to be a proving ground for gun-control legislation that later shows up elsewhere, having only a couple of people consistently working Sacramento seems pretty thin. A jointly funded additional lobbyist among some of the organizations would make a lot of sense.

That said, they're fighting on different fronts—lobbying, litigation and national advocacy. I'd rather see people support ANY of the effective 2A organizations than get hung up on finding the perfect one. Supporting more than one is even better.

 

[MK6M9]

I can't believe it's been almost 10 gd years. Can't take another GVR dog and pony show.

View attachment 231697

...CA Gun Owners............................SCOTUS
View attachment 231698

yes. This is the game by design. endless lawsuits that go nowhere and do nothing for decades. it has become sad honestly that people still think there is progress on all this(which there is nothing to show of it), let alone having hope, while any of these lawsuits that have been occurring for decades do nothing and go on for forever. we ned to remove the people that keep making these bills and laws

 

[command_liner]

yes. This is the game by design. endless lawsuits that go nowhere and do nothing for decades. it has become sad honestly that people still think there is progress on all this(which there is nothing to show of it), let alone having hope, while any of these lawsuits that have been occurring for decades do nothing and go on for forever. we ned to remove the people that keep making these bills and laws

The unambiguous and clear meaning of the 2nd has been litigated by Nichols for 16 years or so. Still no resolution, no
timetable for a resolution, and no admission by the state that the 2nd has any particular meaning.

Imagine a woman having to litigate her right to vote, or a black man need to litigate his status as a slave ... for almost a whole
generation.

Punishment for the misbehavior of public officials ... in the executive and the judiciary and the legislature ... needs to be swift
and effective. In the Caswell case (friends of mine since around 1970) I suggested public hangings. Not a bad remedy here.
These are unambiguous, clear civil rights issues. Brief trial by jury, prompt hanging. One month should be more than enough
time.