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

[ikeo1]

I just don't understand why ANYONE would oppose voter ID. If so, please state your reasons.

This thread isn't about voter ID if you'd like to discuss that.

Please go to:

• https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview
• https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/

 

[Warpspeed]

So here's my voter story.

My mother was registered to vote in Los Angles County and did so by mail in ballot as she was not the most mobile old lady in the world. She had been doing it for a long time.

Well 2 years ago I lost her to cancer. She had symptoms in July and passed in late October. She was at City of Hope so her death was reported to the county by them, I assume. When the primary elections cam around, we did not get a voter package and I fully expected to. You hear all this stuff about the dead voting and all but nothing. We had ballots show up for the rest of the family but not her. I checked on line and she had been removed from the rolls.

So either LA has is collective act together and the other counties don't or the stories of dead people voting are greatly exaggerated or fabricated.

 

[couragewolf]

You're deluding yourself and showing you've never lived anywhere outside the CA bubble.

California's requirements to vote are a joke, unenforced, and for some reason the CA DOJ absolutely refuses to allow any substantial audit of any of it. Hmm. Wonder why.

Stop being part of the problem. When I voted in TN, you had to show proof of citizenship IN PERSON when registering to vote, and had to show your ID TWICE to get into the ballot box. That's only a problem if you're not legally able to vote and/or so dumb you shouldn't be voting.

I moved here after a decade in Texas and things here seem way more put together

 

[treelogger]

How did a thread about a magazine lawsuit turn into pages of voter fraud discussion?

Because some people don't want to accept that in California gun control reflects the will of the voters, and thereby of the elected representatives. They cling to the conspiracy theory that anytime their side loses an election, it must have been caused by shadowy forms of fraud. They offer fake news and anecdotes (usually baseless and reprinted often).

I don't have the hour required to debunk all the nonsense written above. But it's also not worth debunking it, as changing the opinion of people such as Jimi Jah or JohnBrowning (just to pick out two that are listed on the page above) is likely impossible.

 

[treelogger]

So here's my voter story.

My mother was registered to vote in Los Angles County and did so by mail in ballot as she was not the most mobile old lady in the world. She had been doing it for a long time.

Well 2 years ago I lost her to cancer. She had symptoms in July and passed in late October. She was at City of Hope so her death was reported to the county by them, I assume. When the primary elections cam around, we did not get a voter package and I fully expected to. You hear all this stuff about the dead voting and all but nothing. We had ballots show up for the rest of the family but not her. I checked on line and she had been removed from the rolls.

So either LA has is collective act together and the other counties don't or the stories of dead people voting are greatly exaggerated or fabricated.

There are very rare cases of dead people voting, legally. I've never seen it in person (in elections where I was checking the results all the time), but chatting with the staff at the registrar, they have stories. The simple example is that someone mails in a ballot a week before the election, and dies before election night. That ballot will legally be counted. Whether it should be or not is a deep philosophical question, but the current law says it should.

I agree with your observation that purging the voter rolls works remarkably well. This is one of the reasons why modern election campaigns are driven by databases, and get updates of the voter registration data (at reasonably high cost) all the time from the registrar: You don't want to waste your money on sending mailers to dead people, or your volunteers time. Even more important, it is quite rude to call a household, and ask for someone who you SHOULD know has passed away, if only you had checked the voter rolls. When I run campaigns, if a voter is removed from the roll due to being marked deceased, the voter is immediately flagged as "do not contact - deceased" in the instructions that are handed to volunteers; if they have to contact other voters in the same household, they will immediately see on their instruction sheet (today's it's a screen in a web app) what is going on, and can do the right thing.

This is not a rare event: Given that a typical election campaign takes about 3 months, you expect a fraction of a percent of your voters to pass away during the campaign; in a district with 10,000 voters, that's dozens.

The opposite is also true: well-run campaigns also handle newly registered voters differently. Two examples: If campaigning for the local volunteer fire department's tax measure, if a new family moves into the district, the voter needs to know that they just got here, and may not even know who handles fire protection. We give volunteers special "fact sheets" to guide them in explaining this to new residents. Similarly, when campaigning for local schools, voters who just turned 18 are likely students or recent graduates. I used to have a special team of (very young) volunteers who reached out to those new voters, and who could empathize with them and exchange stories (like: you had Ms. Miller in math? Yes, so did I. Boy was she strict.)

Most importantly: Condolences.

 

[SomeOne]

Because some people don't want to accept that in California gun control reflects the will of the voters, and thereby of the elected representatives.

Alas. CA voters are happy to sell their voices for freebies, Democrats are happy to provide on the taxpayer's dime. They care less about the gun control, but happily parroting their leaders.

I don't have the hour required to debunk all the nonsense written above. But it's also not worth debunking it, as changing the opinion of people such as Jimi Jah or JohnBrowning (just to pick out two that are listed on the page above) is likely impossible.

You are entitled to believe in any propaganda you choose. I stick to the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Jimi Jah]

you should try voting a couple of times in the next election and see how that works out for you.

I wouldn't advocate committing a crime here. Besides, I'm a natural born citizen so there is no reason to do that. If not a citizen it's not hard at all. As I mentioned our California registration laws are based on the honor system.

Some are more honorable than others. If you are older like me you remember pumping gas and the paying afterwards. That no longer exists here because the less honorable eliminated that.

No different than voting. "Trust, but verify" is the solution for that.

 

[ZeroFoxGiven]

Because some people don't want to accept that in California gun control reflects the will of the voters, and thereby of the elected representatives. They cling to the conspiracy theory that anytime their side loses an election, it must have been caused by shadowy forms of fraud. They offer fake news and anecdotes (usually baseless and reprinted often).

I don't have the hour required to debunk all the nonsense written above. But it's also not worth debunking it, as changing the opinion of people such as Jimi Jah or JohnBrowning (just to pick out two that are listed on the page above) is likely impossible.

Will of the voters is an illusion. The Voters wanted the death penalty reinstated and a say in new taxes in California but Newsom decided on his own against the Voters will that we, the voters, voices and will meant nothing.

That’s just two examples off of the top of my head. The voters will only matters if your local dictator (Rep or Dem) agree with it.

That is why the 2nd Amendment and the whole Constitution should be guarded against those who would erode it or disregard it entirely.

 

[couragewolf]

Will of the voters is an illusion. The Voters wanted the death penalty reinstated and a say in new taxes in California but Newsom decided on his own against the Voters will that we, the voters, voices and will meant nothing.

That’s just two examples off of the top of my head. The voters will only matters if your local dictator (Rep or Dem) agree with it.

That is why the 2nd Amendment and the whole Constitution should be guarded against those who would erode it or disregard it entirely.

The voters voted to no longer have a say in political outcomes is a funny concept that seems to qualify.

 

[Jimi Jah]

They have a say but many just automatically check D or R without further though.

Politics is a team sport here.

 

[Dirk Tungsten]

Will of the voters is an illusion. The Voters wanted the death penalty reinstated and a say in new taxes in California but Newsom decided on his own against the Voters will that we, the voters, voices and will meant nothing.

That’s just two examples off of the top of my head. The voters will only matters if your local dictator (Rep or Dem) agree with it.

That is why the 2nd Amendment and the whole Constitution should be guarded against those who would erode it or disregard it entirely.

Also, if you go back a few decades, remember Propositions 187, 209 and 8? Yeah that was the judicial branch deciding the will of the voters didn't matter.

 

[jonathaxn]

What are the chances the Supreme Court takes this case and what’s the possibility if they did that the Supreme Court would rule in favor that magazines are apart of the arm and shouldn’t be limited to 10rd.

 

[Sparrow Dynamics]

Not sure where you think I’m saying “red states are innocent” or that I only think CA is the problem.

Our nations voting system has been corrupted and people continue to argue on the behalf of the “party” they identify with.

I’m sick of the team jersey rules. The government doesn’t care about your rights.

I may disagree with someone but I promise I care more about their rights than the government does….if you have your rights then I still have Mine.

I don’t care if you voted for someone different than me. I’d still climb in a wrecked car or a burning building for you as well as vote for your rights.

Notice how my point is corruption needs to stop and our rights are ours….and the response is immediately an attack against Trump. I’m failing to see where I ever mentioned that I’m his advocate in any way….

People have been so brainwashed that if you say “freedom” or “America” this odd Trump syndrome comes out. Gate to tell you, America was here long before Trump…and so was freedoms.

It’s your responsibility to be voting for things that are going to secure our rights and freedoms….REGARDLESS OF WHAT PARTY IT IS. stop being led to slaughter by these politicians with millions. They do not care about YOU. They are NOT HERE TO HELP.

Totally agree. Everyone should open their eyes just a little more and see that their team rarely, if ever, has their best interests at heart (this goes for both sides).

“Nothing is more dangerous to the cause of truth and liberty than a party-spirit.” - Noah Webster

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." - Thomas Paine

"When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: liberty, sir, was then the primary object."
- Patrick Henry's speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention (1788)

 

[Dvrjon]

Original post updated:

The Nov 21, 2025, Supreme Court conference review for Duncan has been rescheduled with no new date posted.

 

[Dvrjon]

What are the chances the Supreme Court takes this case

The Supreme Court receives approximately 7,000 to 10,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each year, but it grants review and hears oral arguments in only about 80 cases.

and what’s the possibility if they did that the Supreme Court would rule in favor that magazines are apart of the arm and shouldn’t be limited to 10rd.

Somewhere between 0-100%.

 

[DB>)>]

I believe this might be the first "test" of the "accoutrements" argument, so that could be interesting - it's completely irrational to make everything that attaches to a firearm nothing but an "accessory", and therefore not protected by the 2A. Yet here we are. Of course California will have the bizarre opportunity to argue that a gun can operate without a magazine in a state that REQUIRES a mag disconnect... that should get pretty amusing. Either a "part" REQUIRED for a gun to fire is by nature protected by the 2A, or the 2A becomes entierly meaningless as more and more insane laws are passed for each "accoutrement" until assembling or maintaining a firearm becomes impossibly complicated and expensive (not that we aren't already "mostly" there).


As far as the capacity limits, we can only hope that the attorneys on the side of freedom make clear that limitations are by nature ARBITRARY (I believe that EU countries have 3-5 round mag limits...), and that there are MILLIONS of "standard capacity" mags in circulation/common use (including in CA!!), with little or no evidence that they result in more violent crime, but that a typical law abiding gun owner could often be confronted with multiple gun toting criminals and be at a serious disadvantage for self defense if constrained by an arbitrary mag capacity.

 

[Sparrow Dynamics]

What are the chances the Supreme Court takes this case and what’s the possibility if they did that the Supreme Court would rule in favor that magazines are apart of the arm and shouldn’t be limited to 10rd.

I feel like they will take it and I feel like it would go in our favor. This is it for Duncan, and Miller is held until Duncan is done, so I hope they take it. If they decide not to take it... it's over, no more possession, no more grandfathered or freedom week mags. Then shortly after we lose Miller which will uphold the "AW" bans in CA and give the state increased boldness in bans. What would be next? Semi-auto? Maybe any rifle based on AR or AK or variant of them, etc. (basically no featureless or fixed mag like Illinois HB5471 ban.

Justice Kavanaugh wrote when they denied cert for Snope v Brown, that they needed to take a 2A case in the next term or two. On the docket for Ocean State Tactical it said 6/2/25 "Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Gorsuch would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari." Justice Thomas said after they denied hearing Snope “I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America. That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR–15 owners throughout the country. We have avoided deciding it for a full decade”.

Duncan v. Bonta SCOTUS docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-198.html

The next big one that was filed last week with SCOTUS is Grant v. Rovella dealing with Connecticut's "AW" ban (similar to the Miller case in California).

Gun Rights Groups Target Connecticut's Assault Weapons Ban

The Second Amendment Foundation has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear Grant v. Rovella, a major challenge to Connecticut’s “assault weapon” ban.

www.ammoland.com

 

[DB>)>]

One could argue that the current crop of anti-2A cases will determine the future of the Republic...

The rumblings from the "use it or lose it" crowd are growing louder, and the inspired calls to violence would make it foolish to disarm and give up the right to self defense.

I still think that the "final" nature of Duncan, along with the prior GVR with instruction to apply Bruen will make Duncan particularly interesting to SCOTUS. The 9th pretty much ignored the instructions, so overturning and definitively reversing their "opinion" would send a message that is long overdue. Prior review of the case should also make it easier to rule?

 

[Dvrjon]

The next big one that was filed last week with SCOTUS is Grant v. Rovella dealing with Connecticut's "AW" ban (similar to the Miller case in California).

Gun Rights Groups Target Connecticut's Assault Weapons Ban

The Second Amendment Foundation has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear Grant v. Rovella, a major challenge to Connecticut’s “assault weapon” ban.

www.ammoland.com

That appears to be an appeal to denial of a preliminary injunction. SCOTUS has often left these alone as the merits of the case hasn't been developed.

 

[Toshiro Mifune]

Also, if you go back a few decades, remember Propositions 187, 209 and 8? Yeah that was the judicial branch deciding the will of the voters didn't matter.

Oh that pesky will of the people argument another member kept mentioning... I was going to bring up your examples and you beat me to it. Cheers.

There are plenty of examples where the "Will of the People" was overturned and that can cut both ways politically. Unfortunately relying on the Kings and Queens of the Supreme Court is of no comfort. They are also political beings and just as corrupted by power and control. But I guess it's the best chance we have at the moment to restore 2A rights.