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

[Skilly]

Just to throw some context into the firearm related deaths portion of your post. Suicide make up the bulk of US gun related deaths at 58% (~27,000) per year according to CDC data. The next large category was murder at 38% (~18,000). Suicide by gun is the most common form of suicide in the US at 55%. Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...un-deaths-are-murders-what-share-are-suicides I'm not sure the comparison is exactly apples to apples using the total gun deaths in the US.

And, just to bring it back to OP's intent, less than 1% of those recorded deaths are linked to standard capacity magazines.

 

[shroom]

England and the retweeting comment is interesting - there have been hundreds in the US losing their jobs from the same

You mean the people posting about how they got fired for publicly celebrating Charlie Kirk's death on social media? Freedom of speech does not mean that you'll face no backlash from your private employer for your speech, it means that the government can't retaliate against you for your speech. This isn't true in the UK, people have regularly been taken into police custody for things they've posted online.

 

[jhsd20]

I second this

You mean the people posting about how they got fired for publicly celebrating Charlie Kirk's death on social media? Freedom of speech does not mean that you'll face no backlash from your private employer for your speech, it means that the government can't retaliate against you for your speech. This isn't true in the UK, people have regularly been taken into police custody for things they've posted online.

I want to highlight this point. Free speech means the government cannot criminally charge you or censor what you say. It does not mean private parties cannot respond to what's said in legal ways.

Jimmy Kimmel being fired is not censorship of free speech. He has not been arrested, nor has the offending clip been removed from public view. Anyone can still see and hear what he said. His employer didn't want to continue paying him for saying those things is all.

Likewise, if I worked for the DNC and gave a glowing endorsement of Trump, they have every right to fire me.

 

[Skilly]

You mean the people posting about how they got fired for publicly celebrating Charlie Kirk's death on social media? Freedom of speech does not mean that you'll face no backlash from your private employer for your speech, it means that the government can't retaliate against you for your speech. This isn't true in the UK, people have regularly been taken into police custody for things they've posted online.

I don't have to agree with those public comments to support free speech. Moreover, the constitutional protections aren't just so the government is prevented from infringing on them. Rather they are in place to unilaterally protect US citizens and their rights. There are parameters that reign in some aspects such as threats, inciting lawless actions, obscenities, and specific job roles but there is a lot of room to say toxic and dumb things within these rights.

Ultimately, if you agree with free speech but only with a caveat that its comfortable to you then its not free speech.

As much as I disagree with a lot of what is said under the freedoms that 1A protect, I am thankful for it. Thats what a mute button, blocking or unsubscribe option is there solve for.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

I second this

I want to highlight this point. Free speech means the government cannot criminally charge you or censor what you say. It does not mean private parties cannot respond to what's said in legal ways.

Jimmy Kimmel being fired is not censorship of free speech. He has not been arrested, nor has the offending clip been removed from public view. Anyone can still see and hear what he said. His employer didn't want to continue paying him for saying those things is all.

Likewise, if I worked for the DNC and gave a glowing endorsement of Trump, they have every right to fire me.

the part with Kimmel being 1st amendment relevant was the FCC Chair Brendan Carr publicly called for ABC to suspend late-night host Jimmy Kimmel after comments he made about Trump. The FCC should never say things like that, per the constitution, especially for a boring ass joke that wasn't even about Kirk it was about Trump's reaction. There is plenty of precedent of the government merely putting pressure on people being illegal. That said, nothing is illegal if it's not enforced and 1st amendment actions are civil not criminal so there have to be damages.

 

[phonso302]

Said it once I'll say it again. SCOTUS isn't touching this, will send back to 9th circus and the process starts all over again... Same with AW bans it's a dog and pony show. If they do take it and rule this crappy state will do same as ccw permits. You can have a permit to carry a firearm but you can't carry anywhere

 

[Jimi Jah]

I'm still waiting for the resolution of Prop 187 and 8. It's only been around 30 years.

 

[shroom]

Said it once I'll say it again. SCOTUS isn't touching this, will send back to 9th circus and the process starts all over again... Same with AW bans it's a dog and pony show. If they do take it and rule this crappy state will do same as ccw permits. You can have a permit to carry a firearm but you can't carry anywhere

They've already GVR'd the case once. Can they do it again?

If they decide to not GVR it again(if they can) or if they decide to not hear it then things are pretty bleak for CA.

 

[jhsd20]

I have a feeling SCOTUS will not strike down the bans but will conclude that taking or forced buyback of already legally owned magazines is not constitutional. Aka status quo pre prop 63.

I have no legal theorycraft to back this claim. Just a gut feeling.

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

Im optimistic. AW ban and mag ban at the same time right before Christmas? What are the chances.

 

[PlinkyDinky]

Im optimistic. AW ban and mag ban at the same time right before Christmas? What are the chances.

Slim, but not None!

 

[exnds]

I’m a bigger optimist. I think SCOTUS is going to burn the house down and issue a summary reversal.

 

[GoldensRule]

I’m a bigger optimist. I think SCOTUS is going to burn the house down and issue a summary reversal.

Nothing wrong with being optimistic.

Unfortunately, SCOTUS has dropped the Duncan v. Bonta conference, which was scheduled for today, 21 November 2025, from the docket and has not even rescheduled it. It's a fools errand to predict what this SCOTUS might or might not do but, ordinarily I would say dropping it from the docket and not rescheduling it, is not a positive sign.

Maybe if someone buys a new motorhome for Thomas or a fishing lodge for Alito, it will be rescheduled.

 

[Jimi Jah]

The SC is pretty much done with gun cases. They still haven't issued clarifications to Heller.

They weave and bob to issue excuses or they simply ignore the lower cases.

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

Nothing wrong with being optimistic.

Unfortunately, SCOTUS has dropped the Duncan v. Bonta conference, which was scheduled for today, 21 November 2025, from the docket and has not even rescheduled it. It's a fools errand to predict what this SCOTUS might or might not do but, ordinarily I would say dropping it from the docket and not rescheduling it, is not a positive sign.

Maybe if someone buys a new motorhome for Thomas or a fishing lodge for Alito, it will be rescheduled.

Pretty sure its been rescheduled for dec 5 along with an aw ban case.

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

Distributed for conference 12-5

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

All in one place

 

[han_solo]

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but for the sake of sleeping well at night and not completely spinning out, it's good to try to keep perspective...



Just because you THINK they are your civil rights, doesn't mean they are.

Just because you want legislation, or even the constitution, to be interpreted a certain way, doesn't mean everyone else does.

"The government" is not some big faceless corporation in which none of us have a say. At least it's not supposed to be...though I guess a lot of people think it should be run like a for profit business now (yikes).

Some group of US sent everyone one of these politicians to Sacramento, Washington DC, etc. Whether directly by voting for them, or indirectly by not doing enough to organize for the other guy.

So long as we have fair and free elections in this country, "The government" is elected by your fellow countrymen.

If the decision comes down and the legislation you don't like remains the law of the land, the simple truth remains: that not enough of your fellow countrymen agree with you for change to happen right now. Or...maybe...people agree with you, but they care MORE about a lot of other things and vote accordingly, and then don't care enough to dedicate themselves to organizing.

Either way, you get to the same place: Maybe it's what YOU want. Maybe it's what everyone you know wants. But you clearly don't know enough people because...by the votes...it's not what MOST want.

If the overreaching government tyranny being suggested here was actually the case (ie the majority of California voters want looser restrictions, yet the government is tightening) it would be very puzzling that California voters just voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to gerrymander the state to the max for democrats.

Majority rule is not the law of the land . The constitution is . Period . Point blank . If like you say the majority wants gun control than they simply must amend the constitution . Good luck . Until that day ALL restrictions on fire arms are unconstitutional.and this illegal . People who think the majority rules are exactly what's wrong with America .

 

[han_solo]

That's a pretty difficult statement to reconcile when one looks at the numbers.

The top 10 states for gun deaths per 100k population are mostly states with rather lax gun laws.

Mississippi 29.4
Louisiana 28.3
Alabama 25.6
New Mexico 25.3
Alaska 23.5
Tennessee 22.0
Arkansas 21.9
Montana 21.5
Wyoming 21.5
Missouri 21.4

The bottom ten states for gun deaths (per 100k pop) are mostly states with rather strict gun laws.

Iowa 10.5
New Hampshire 9.6
Minnesota 8.9
California 8.0
Connecticut 6.2
Hawaii 4.9
Rhode Island 4.8
New York 4.7
New Jersey 4.6
Massachusetts 3.7

Source (violence): https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-violence-by-state
Source (laws): https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state

Get better sources ... Lol

 

[han_solo]

There are no inalienable rights codified in the US constitution, none, look it up.

The inalienable rights enumerated in our Declaration of Independence are: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Unfortunately, the DOI is NOT codified law.

Any right that has been codified in our constitution CAN BE CHANGED through the process of amending the constitution, any right. It's not as if some deity handed down these rights from on-high.

Um yes one did .. He is recognized in the statements . Where do you think all men are created equal comes from ..