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

[Dvrjon]

Duncan has a lot going on, much of which is a chllenge to the way lower courts have been mis-applying Bruen and other 2A holdings over time.

The State’s response to the Request for Certiorari states that Large Capacity Magazines (LCMs) are accessories and not arms, thus putting LCMs outside the reach of the 2A. However, their briefs, including the reply brief, directly associate the banning of LCMs with the regulation of especially dangerous weapons.



That seems to directly refute the accessory claim, but also points out a major shift which the anti-gun folks have quietly slid into the discussion. That is the concept of any “especially dangerous weapon” is outside of 2A protection.

What they’ve done is to pervert the language of previous SCOTUS decisions to provide a useful tool. SCOTUS never used that term.

SCOTUS in Heller (citing Miller):

So, “dangerous and unusual” is now “unusually dangerous”.

SCOTUS Really needs to review this.

 

[Skilly]

case has been updated:

Nov 18 2025

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/5/2025.

Docket for 25-198

 

[treelogger]

However, their briefs, including the reply brief, directly associate the banning of LCMs with the regulation of especially dangerous weapons.
...
That seems to directly refute the accessory claim, ...

For some reason, you and many others seem insistent on claiming that magazines are arms. I see the reasons behind that claim: Since the 2A protects arms, you are hoping to extend that to anything that is a part of, or accessory for, or tool to create, and so on. But it defies logic, as a magazine is not an arm, nor are the screws required to put together a gun, or the milling machine required to build it. The sensible logic is that under the 2A, we can not ban arms indiscriminately, therefore a ban on magazines (and on screws and milling machines that makes building guns impossible) is already impermissible. Basing the protection of magazines and other things on a logically faulty argument might work once, but is super dangerous for the future.

And: Just because something can be regulated, like especially dangerous weapons are regulated, doesn't mean it is an arm. Many other things that clearly are not weapons are heavily regulated, such as certain chemicals, medical devices, motor vehicle parts. Nobody would claim that just because (as an example) seat belts have to have a label with their DOT registration number that seat belts are arms. The logic you are reaching for here is too long a stretch.

but also points out a major shift which the anti-gun folks have quietly slid into the discussion. That is the concept of any “especially dangerous weapon” is outside of 2A protection.

That has been true for a very long time. All I need to say is "2 gauge punt guns". And I won't mention nuclear arms, since that seems to regularly upset some posters here.

 

[Skilly]

For some reason, you and many others seem insistent on claiming that magazines are arms. I see the reasons behind that claim: Since the 2A protects arms, you are hoping to extend that to anything that is a part of, or accessory for, or tool to create, and so on. But it defies logic, as a magazine is not an arm, nor are the screws required to put together a gun, or the milling machine required to build it. The sensible logic is that under the 2A, we can not ban arms indiscriminately, therefore a ban on magazines (and on screws and milling machines that makes building guns impossible) is already impermissible. Basing the protection of magazines and other things on a logically faulty argument might work once, but is super dangerous for the future.

To me (and many others) the reason that the magazine is 'arms' it because it serves no other purpose other than arms. They arent universal, or even be leveraged for any other purpose than the arm itself. Its a distinguishable difference from the position that a screw is the same as a magazine. And, I think its core to the position.

What defies logic for me is the notion that a screw and the magazine are the same in the eyes of 2A interpretations. You keep using terms like "defies logic" and "sensible"....the terms are at the core of the debate, so logic and sensible are still not clearly defined. Heller broadened the definition back to the Constitutional definition and the Courts then put vagary back into that definition to account for unlawful use. And, in doing so neglected to put a comprehensive definition of what exactly constitutes protected arms.

The hearing on 12/5 will hopefully clear that up. But it is certainly an assumption that any of this follows pure logic. It doesn't.

 

[Dvrjon]

For some reason, you and many others seem insistent on claiming that magazines are arms.

For some reason you periodically seem insistent on bending what is posted to suit your own needs.

My reference merely points out that there appears to be an obvious conflict between the state’s insistence that magazines are not arms (weapons) and their stated reason for banning is the tradition of regulating weapons. To make sense, their argument should reference a tradition of regulating weapon accessories, but that doesn’t exist.

And: Just because something can be regulated, like especially dangerous weapons are regulated, doesn't mean it is an arm. Many other things that clearly are not weapons are heavily regulated, such as certain chemicals, medical devices, motor vehicle parts. Nobody would claim that just because (as an example) seat belts have to have a label with their DOT registration number that seat belts are arms. The logic you are reaching for here is too long a stretch.

You may have missed this, but seatbelts (and all the other stuff you listed) are not mentioned in the 2A.

That has been true for a very long time. All I need to say is "2 gauge punt guns". And I won't mention nuclear arms, since that seems to regularly upset some posters here.

You’ve just jumped over the concept of “bearable arms” which are “dangerous and unusual.” Otherwise, the arms are first valued by the concept of “in common use”. 2 gauge punt guns and nukes don’t seem to rise to that standard.

 

[Jcwatchdog]

We have to be positive. My hope is that they will reschedule to 12/5, the same day Viramontes v Cook County is scheduled, then take both the AW and mag ban together. That would be the ultimate.

Well looky what happened at least there’s hope….

 

[Deleted member 16735]

I think it's fair to say that the law and it's interpretation especially with regard to the constitution is highly subject to who is sitting on the bench, whether that's the 9th circuit or the Supreme court. Clarence Thomas will probably have the interpretation that most of us share on this issue but will have a completely bonkers take on another topic. The bottom line is we have just wait and see what happens because it could really go either way on all these cases even with the supposed gun friendly majority.

 

[shroom]

Republican appointed =/= gun friendly necessarily. Only need 4 votes to take a case, yet for Snope v. Brown only 3 yes votes were mustered. That means 3 republican appointed judges voted no.

 

[Warpspeed]

SCOTUS justices are human beings with all the flaws and oddities that comes with it. Trying to figure out why they do what they do is pointless. At least for me.

 

[treelogger]

My reference merely points out that there appears to be an obvious conflict ...

OK, understood, and apologies for reading something into it you didn't intend.

To make sense, their argument should reference a tradition of regulating weapon accessories, but that doesn’t exist.

But there are long traditions of banning many other things, which have nothing to do with weapons.

You’ve just jumped over the concept of “bearable arms” which are “dangerous and unusual.” Otherwise, the arms are first valued by the concept of “in common use”. 2 gauge punt guns and nukes don’t seem to rise to that standard.

I agree with you that gun control advocates have been (trying to forget or ...) forgetting the "and" in "dangerous and unusual". Instead creating a sliding scale, where if something is very dangerous, it doesn't have to be all that unusual, and still can be regulated.

Underlying this is a peculiarity of gun law as understood today (post-Heller and Bruen): Nothing that is common can get regulated. This is very different from most other fields of government regulation. For example, medicines that contain mercury used to be common (for typhoid and syphilis), and today are banned. Leaded gasoline was a great technology for keeping valves in engines lubricated, and it was also prohibited. Cocaine (in the form of Coca-cola, hence the name) was consumed widely, and then became VERY illegal. The US even managed to ban all alcohol drink, and nobody can claim that beer and booze were "unusual". None of these bans have been challenged on the grounds that it is constitutionally impossible to regulate something that is in common use. And the 18th amendment was undone because prohibition was a really bad policy that had awful side effects, in particular giving rise to modern gun control. Yet, in gun law in the US, we think that something that is not "unusual" or that is "in common use" can not ever be regulated.

Oh, and punt guns used to be quite common; we forget that hunted (as opposed to farmed) meat used to be a much more significant part of meat production than it is today. Today, wild game is a rare specialty food, and waterfowl that are commercially available are mostly farm raised; that was very different 100 or 200 years ago. Yet punt guns got banned. Why? Supposedly the reason was that with rapid population growth, it was wiping out the waterfowl population to the point where they were at risk for being unviable for recovery , and had to be protected. So what was the reaction? Banning the mass-production hunting of waterfowl, and then banning the large-gauge shotguns used for that.

The concept of "ordered liberty" which is at the base of our society (here in the US, and in most organized societies) has in it a deep conflict, between the desire of the majority and the government to create "order", and the desire of individuals (including those in the majority) to have "liberty". One of the places where that conflict comes to the surface is when we want to regulate inanimate objects, be it medications, car seatbelts, or weapons. There are ways to do that regulation that are more intrusive, such as prohibition (18th amendment), or the California-style gun bans (AWB, 50BMG, current LCM law that has no grandfather clause). There are ways to do that which are less intrusive, for example making sure all cars have seatbelts: That was done by simply outlawing existing cars without seatbelts, but by forcing car makers to add seatbelts to new cars, and relying on the fact that cars typically don't last long (average is probably 10-15 years) to get the safety features into broad usage.

 

[treelogger]

But I am actually curious if you believe in the second amendment by your posts. All I have seen you do is try to play “Devils Advocate” as a thinly disguised 2A Ban Supporter. If that is your stance, more power to you.

I’m not questioning your opinions, just curious to what you actually believe what the Second Amendment means, and in your opinion should it even be relevant in today’s society by your previous posts.

That is a long and complicated question. I have answered it before a few times, on the Calguns forum (where my account has been banned for at least 10 years), and on Reddit. Allow me to get back to writing that again, but not right now, as I'm going to be busy today.

Here's the nutshell version: I don't believe in the 2A at all. I instead believe in a version of "ultra-strict scrutiny", which is that anything that infringes liberty (of any kind) needs to be very well justified. The 2A is a casuistic attempt to create a special carve-out for guns, which takes that basic principle and both overly restricts it and overly broadens it (have to explain what I mean). I think the form of gun regulation that for example exists in Sweden on Switzerland is a much better way to go about it, because it is intellectually more honest and can be long term load bearing.

 

[ZeroFoxGiven]

That is a long and complicated question. I have answered it before a few times, on the Calguns forum (where my account has been banned for at least 10 years), and on Reddit. Allow me to get back to writing that again, but not right now, as I'm going to be busy today.

Here's the nutshell version: I don't believe in the 2A at all. I instead believe in a version of "ultra-strict scrutiny", which is that anything that infringes liberty (of any kind) needs to be very well justified. The 2A is a casuistic attempt to create a special carve-out for guns, which takes that basic principle and both overly restricts it and overly broadens it (have to explain what I mean). I think the form of gun regulation that for example exists in Sweden on Switzerland is a much better way to go about it, because it is intellectually more honest and can be long term load bearing.

So why are you even be a member of a gun forum? Are you writing a thesis?

While I respect your right to have a difference of opinion, I do not find your opinions helpful in any possible meaningful way to make the 2A Community or 2A in general better. For this reason I will be “ignoring” you as I there is enough negativity in the world. I come here to discus positive 2A Rights /Laws.

But keep on preaching brother, that is also one of your “Rights.”

 

[treelogger]

My post just got deleted for

Your accusation that I'm secretly anti-gun and here only as a pretext is indeed insulting, and deserves to be deleted.

So why are you even be a member of a gun forum? Are you writing a thesis?

Because I'm a gun owner, target shooter, and gun rights advocate. I've actually put considerable money and time into pro-gun activities.

I do not find your opinions helpful in any possible meaningful way to make the 2A Community or 2A in general better.

It's actually very interesting that you use the word "2A" to mean gun (or gun rights or gun community). The observation that there are places in the world that have no 2A in their legal system (constitution etc.), yet have significantly better gun rights than California, makes that mistake in your thinking quite explicitly visible.

The fact that you don't find my viewpoint or activism helpful in reaching our common goal points out one of the problems in pro-gun activism, namely factionalism; but that is something we need to live with.

For this reason I will be “ignoring” you as I there is enough negativity in the world. I come here to discus positive 2A Rights /Laws.

I disagree. I think you are here to listen to the rah-rah talk in an echo chamber. I suspect that you want to hear how things are going to be wonderful soon, when X (insert your favorite politician or judge/court) fixes all ills. I personally find echo chambers not just unhelpful, but outright dangerous, since they (invariably? usually?) lead to sloppy thinking, wrong reasoning, and ultimately defeat.

 

[Toshiro Mifune]

That is a long and complicated question. I have answered it before a few times, on the Calguns forum (where my account has been banned for at least 10 years), and on Reddit. Allow me to get back to writing that again, but not right now, as I'm going to be busy today.

Here's the nutshell version: I don't believe in the 2A at all. I instead believe in a version of "ultra-strict scrutiny", which is that anything that infringes liberty (of any kind) needs to be very well justified. The 2A is a casuistic attempt to create a special carve-out for guns, which takes that basic principle and both overly restricts it and overly broadens it (have to explain what I mean). I think the form of gun regulation that for example exists in Sweden on Switzerland is a much better way to go about it, because it is intellectually more honest and can be long term load bearing.

Wow, Switzerland? Noted, got it. From now on I understand your point of view. If you are advocating for Switzerland and believe that to be the ideal than what else can anyone say.

 

[treelogger]

I'm quite sure I didn't say that Switzerland is ideal. Only that it is better than California in some respects. In particular, it is more stable and predictable, because it is built around respect for the rule of law, and around the principles of a libertarian constitutional state.

 

[Sparrow Dynamics]

anything that infringes liberty (of any kind) needs to be very well justified. ......... I think the form of gun regulation that for example exists in Sweden on Switzerland is a much better way to go about it, because it is intellectually more honest and can be long term load bearing.

I'm glad you're here and that Ikeo1 made this forum to discuss California gun topics and have great conversations where we can agree and disagree. BUT, on this statement, I strongly disagree. This is very dangerous (not just for gun rights) to individual liberty when the government and the collective has so much power.

Patrick Henry fighting for individual liberties 1788 "Shall we imitate the example of those nations who have gone from a simple to a splendid government? Are those nations more worthy of our imitation? What can make an adequate satisfaction to them for the loss they have suffered in attaining such a government–for the loss of their liberty?" He went on to say "When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different; liberty, sir, was then the primary object.".

 

[shroom]

Many Swiss gun laws sure as make more sense than American ones. I'm not against regulation, I'm just against low iq regulation that does nothing but bust the balls of law abiding gun owners for no reason.

Why are suppressors such a pain in the ass to get in other states, why are they banned in CA?

How much deadlier is a 15in rifle than a 16in one that you have to jump through 50 hoops to get one in states they aren't banned in?

 

[bazooka]

So why are you even be a member of a gun forum? Are you writing a thesis?

While I respect your right to have a difference of opinion, I do not find your opinions helpful in any possible meaningful way to make the 2A Community or 2A in general better. For this reason I will be “ignoring” you as I there is enough negativity in the world. I come here to discus positive 2A Rights /Laws.

But keep on preaching brother, that is also one of your “Rights.”

I am really new to these forums, but I just assumed there was much more being discussed here than just the second amendment. I actually didn't even think this was a 2A community; I thought it was a gun-owner community.

I haven't studied the second amendment at all. I don't actually have a reasoned position on it and appreciate hearing all sides. I do know that I selfishly want to preserve my rights to bear arms and I certainly recognize a feeling of violation under current California law. I do look to some interpretation of the second amendment as helping to preserve those rights. But, I also suspect that some interpretations would have consequences I oppose.

Good arguments are demonstrated as such by standing up well to points raised in counter-arguments. The best thing that can happen is that we notice when a good argument is being made from the opposing side and allow it to modify our thinking slightly. I remember being told by a teacher that it was great that I was wrong about something because it allowed me to learn something new (I was still pretty pissed).

 

[ltp_concepts]

I am really new to these forums, but I just assumed there was much more being discussed here than just the second amendment. I actually didn't even think this was a 2A community; I thought it was a gun-owner community.

I haven't studied the second amendment at all. I don't actually have a reasoned position on it and appreciate hearing all sides. I do know that I selfishly want to preserve my rights to bear arms and I certainly recognize a feeling of violation under current California law. I do look to some interpretation of the second amendment as helping to preserve those rights. But, I also suspect that some interpretations would have consequences I oppose.

Good arguments are demonstrated as such by standing up well to points raised in counter-arguments. The best thing that can happen is that we notice when a good argument is being made from the opposing side and allow it to modify our thinking slightly. I remember being told by a teacher that it was great that I was wrong about something because it allowed me to learn something new (I was still pretty pissed).

Why does this read like AI wrote it?

 

[Dvrjon]

OK, understood, and apologies for reading something into it you didn't intend.

OK.

But there are long traditions of banning many other things, which have nothing to do with weapons.

And none of them are associated with a Constitutional entry which arguably affirms some level of a God-given Right to not have the keeping and bearing of firearms banned (or infringed upon). And seriously, stop using the nuclear issue as a comparative. It weakens whatever credibility you may have on the issue.

I agree with you that gun control advocates have been (trying to forget or ...) forgetting the "and" in "dangerous and unusual". Instead creating a sliding scale, where if something is very dangerous, it doesn't have to be all that unusual, and still can be regulated.

I am glad you agree, but I would suggest they are not trying to forget anything. They have willfully redrafted the language to create a tortuous logic allowing the subjective analysis of “unusually dangerous” to creep in as doctrine. This perverts the SCOTUS concept that “unusual” is “not in common use” and allows the banning of anything regardless of its prolific use by citizens. (Of course, nuclear weapons would be covered by either, but we aren’t talking about nukes anymore.)

(You may infer that I wish you’d stopped at the first sentence.)

Underlying this is a peculiarity of gun law as understood today (post-Heller and Bruen): Nothing that is common can get regulated. This is very different from most other fields of government regulation. For example, medicines that contain mercury used to be common (for typhoid and syphilis), and today are banned. Leaded gasoline was a great technology for keeping valves in engines lubricated, and it was also prohibited. Cocaine (in the form of Coca-cola, hence the name) was consumed widely, and then became VERY illegal. The US even managed to ban all alcohol drink, and nobody can claim that beer and booze were "unusual". None of these bans have been challenged on the grounds that it is constitutionally impossible to regulate something that is in common use. And the 18th amendment was undone because prohibition was a really bad policy that had awful side effects, in particular giving rise to modern gun control. Yet, in gun law in the US, we think that something that is not "unusual" or that is "in common use" can not ever be regulated.

Please comb the depths of the Constitution and provide a citation which confers that the inalienable right to keep and bear Cocaine shall not be infringed. Otherwise, let’s confine ourselves to the legalities of keeping and bearing arms. And, of course, what is/is not an arm.

Oh, and punt guns used to be quite common; we forget that hunted (as opposed to farmed) meat used to be a much more significant part of meat production than it is today. Today, wild game is a rare specialty food, and waterfowl that are commercially available are mostly farm raised; that was very different 100 or 200 years ago. Yet punt guns got banned. Why? Supposedly the reason was that with rapid population growth, it was wiping out the waterfowl population to the point where they were at risk for being unviable for recovery , and had to be protected. So what was the reaction? Banning the mass-production hunting of waterfowl, and then banning the large-gauge shotguns used for that.

Punt guns are still legal to keep and bear. Their use in waterfowl hunting is proscribed. Concealed carry or sneaking it into the hotel in luggage seems impractical. *. (You should probably mothball this argument, too.)

The concept of "ordered liberty" which is at the base of our society (here in the US, and in most organized societies) has in it a deep conflict, between the desire of the majority and the government to create "order", and the desire of individuals (including those in the majority) to have "liberty". One of the places where that conflict comes to the surface is when we want to regulate inanimate objects, be it medications, car seatbelts, or weapons. There are ways to do that regulation that are more intrusive, such as prohibition (18th amendment), or the California-style gun bans (AWB, 50BMG, current LCM law that has no grandfather clause).

A few thoughts:
First, the question at hand is not whether the State can prohibit things. It is whether the Constitution bars such prohibitions on arms. Any comparative exemplars such as medications, seatbelts, etc. are inapt and need to be left by the roadside.

Second, the agenda of the anti-gun movement is not regulation; it is outright disarmament. Given the opportunity, they would delete the 2A in its entirety and collect every gun, bullet, precursor part or accessory. In 2010, Newsom’s San Francisco issued a amicus brief in McDonald (incorporate 2A into the states) which stated, “At bottom, the Second Amendment right cannot be considered implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, so as to justify its incorporation under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Those arguments failed, perhaps indicating that the 2A can be (is) considered implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.

Third: The Progressives are not in this to provide “Safety for All”. They are in this to cover the fact that the social norms of this country have dissolved over the past decades leading to substantial violence perpetrated by individuals suffering from mental health issues or who are personally aggrieved by the fact that Mom’s bumper sticker about their kid being honor student of the week in First grade didn’t translate into being the homecoming King in High School. They don’t have a plan to resolve the violence through social policy, so they are moving on a plan to ban guns “for the children”.

There are ways to do that which are less intrusive, for example making sure all cars have seatbelts: That was done by simply outlawing existing cars without seatbelts, but by forcing car makers to add seatbelts to new cars, and relying on the fact that cars typically don't last long (average is probably 10-15 years) to get the safety features into broad usage.

Although they have seatbelts, my ‘94 Bronco laughs at your car longevity timeline; my ‘69 Corvette aloofly snickers in the corner.
////////
* Punt Gun: