18+ Content Warning

By clicking Enter, you confirm you are 18 years of age or older and agree to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws.

Notice: Any content or member activity - including anything you may buy, sell, transfer, or discuss - must comply with current and upcoming laws.

Members are encouraged to stay informed: California Firearm Laws: 2026 Outlook & 2025 Recap . Responsibility for compliance rests solely with the individual member.

What's new
caguns.net

Welcome to CAguns.net!
Join our growing community where you can ask questions, share knowledge, or browse our classifieds section.

Sign up for a free account today and unlock full access! Once registered, you can search, post, and take advantage of exclusive features unavailable to guests.

A note on why more of the site now requires an account: automated scrapers and AI systems have been crawling our forums and classifieds at a scale. Requiring sign-in for those sections is the most effective tool we have. It takes a minute to register, it's free, and it keeps what happens here between actual members.

New to California gun ownership or trying to keep up with the changing laws? Check out our sister site CA2A.com — free courses, plain-English legal updates, and step-by-step guides built for California owners.

Advanced features are available only to registered members. Register today!

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

Who is this Alzheimer guy everyone keeps mentioning?

Mods: You can delete this message if you feel like it ... it does not contribute to knowledge about the legal case we were discussing. I think I've already forgotten its name though. Maybe one of the posts here will remind me.
 
!!!!BREAKING NEWS!!!!!
(No clickbait) :cool:

Viramontes/Clark Amici Briefings are coming in. CRPA has filed its Brief underscoring the DUNCAN issues as well as lower court shenanigans. Here’s the TOC:

ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 4
I. The Second Amendment Protects Common
Semiautomatic Ri�les and the Ordinary
Means of Keeping, Using, and Maintaining
Them .............................................................................. 4
II. The Court’s Reasoning in These Cases Will
Govern Duncan, and the Court Should Say So 7
A. AR-15s are protected Arms, and the
magazines they are designed to use
cannot be treated as constitutionally
unrelated objects. .............................................. 7
B. The Court should grant and summarily
reverse Duncan or, at a minimum,
provide clear guidance that requires
reversal.. ................................................................ 9
III. The Court’s Decision Should Be Clear
Enough to Foreclose the Regulatory Evasion
That Has Followed Every Prior Second
Amendment Decision .............................................. 12
A. Hostile governments have responded to
every major Second Amendment
decision by devising new ways to evade
the right, and there is no reason to
expect this case will be different..... ............ 13
B. The Court’s holding should foreclose the
most predictable avenues of evasion. ........ 17
Click to expand...
 
lopez1171 said:
Laws for Dummy’s? What does this update mean?
Click to expand...
People were afraid that the current set of 2A cases before the Supreme Court were going to be interpreted too narrowly, so AR-15s would get protection but not necessarily the magazines for them. This brief helps link the legality of magazines and other products that are commonly used in conjunction with AR-15s to the Viramontes/Clark cases that are going to be argued in court next year.

It also warns of illegal side-stepping by gun grabbing Democrats, like the "sin tax" that makes us pay 11% on top of all the other costs or the new law that forces vendors to jump through hoops to get parts to California customers.
 
It’s an opportunity for all the “friends of the court “ to express their opinion about how the ruling on this case should result.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court sees the merit in these arguments and rules in favor of the 2A.
 
HibikiR said:
People were afraid that the current set of 2A cases before the Supreme Court were going to be interpreted too narrowly, so AR-15s would get protection but not necessarily the magazines for them. This brief helps link the legality of magazines and other products that are commonly used in conjunction with AR-15s to the Viramontes/Clark cases that are going to be argued in court next year.

It also warns of illegal side-stepping by gun grabbing Democrats, like the "sin tax" that makes us pay 11% on top of all the other costs or the new law that forces vendors to jump through hoops to get parts to California customers.
Click to expand...

I think they have to address magazines in some way. AW regulations often cite a capacity to accept a detachable magazine greater than 10
rounds. It’s part of AW definitions.
 
john_marsten_1873 said:
He’s going to tell you that voting work doesn’t and you need to “remove”, without giving specifics.
Click to expand...
yes exactly but do not let me interrupt your delusional hope, even though you will be hoping for another six years on this (shrugs)
 
For a second I found myself a little excited to read a report of Duncan set for argument. But, alas, my hopes were dashed. The Duncan thread has become a Viramontes thread. I missed the fork in the road.😞
 
I just want a conclusion to this nonsense, man...this just feels like a carrot on a stick thing at this point.

What the hell is this Viramontes crap now too? 🫩
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom