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

[Toshiro Mifune]

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/12/2025
Which is much better than outright denied.
Keep on mind SCOTUS is extremely busy with all lawsuits and orders against current administration. California alone has filed over 40 lawsuits against Trump.

It does amaze me what gets fast tracked to SCOTUS

 

[skb720]

The debate between whether the Second Amendment is a "collective right" vs. "individual right" will last forever. SCOTUS will NEVER attempt to definitively answer that question. It will eventually take a future amendment to the Constitution to clarify that, but that will probably Never happen as well.

 

[Dvrjon]

Does this say conference 12/12?

Search

www.supremecourt.gov

Yes. As I noted in the post, no action was taken on the merits of the request. But, we would learn more later today. Your link shows the Docket for future actions and shows the case has been re-listed for this coming Friday.

Results of that conference will appear on the following Monday.

Re-listing is one of the options discussed in Post # 491.

But, in short:

A relist can mean several things, including the fairly straight forward prospect that one or more Justices wants to take a closer look at the case; that one or more Justices is trying to pick up enough votes to grant review (four are needed); that the Justices are writing a summary reversal (that is, a decision that the lower court opinion was so wrong that the Court can decide the case on the merits without briefing or oral argument); or that one or more Justices are writing a dissent from the decision to deny review.

Let’s hope for a Summary Reversal, yes?

 

[bbp00]

The debate between whether the Second Amendment is a "collective right" vs. "individual right" will last forever. SCOTUS will NEVER attempt to definitively answer that question. It will eventually take a future amendment to the Constitution to clarify that, but that will probably Never happen as well.

Individual right see Heller, applies to states see McDonald.

 

[Ro-bo]

Let’s hope for a Summary Reversal, yes?

Unlikely, but that would be great. Just do as they did with Caetano and be done with it. Doubt that's the fate of Duncan though.

 

[SomeOne]

The problem with being an originalist or a textualist when citing the 2nd amendment is, you open the door for further analysis of the entire amendment such as words like "Militia". Contrary to popular belief, states did have militias and their primary purpose was to put down slave rebellions. In no way did "militia" mean the entire citizenry of the nation. With the reversal of Roe V. Wade, the path has been opened for future SCOTUS benches to overturn cases like Heller and Bruen.

We can argue the semantics, but 2A very clearly grants the right to the people, not just the State Militia of any form or kind. See below.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

One can argue that National Guard is the modern Militia. I disagree, however it doesn't change the fact the 2A protects the right of the people.

 

[SomeOne]

It is also not a right of the militia. It is a right of the people.

Yes, 2A does not establish the militia's right. It clearly states the people's right.

 

[Dvrjon]

With the reversal of Roe V. Wade, the path has been opened for future SCOTUS benches to overturn cases like Heller and Bruen.

Roe was reversed because it turned on a fabricated protracted alleged right of personal body privacy (the Constitutional right to have an abortion). Even RGB believed that Roe was a faulty decision. See: https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/j...s-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit

Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

SCOTUS reversed saying there was no outright statement in the Constitution preserving a right to abortion and the text and tradition supported that context. Without a Constitutional right, the activity was returned to the individual states under state sovereignty.

Heller and Bruen are based on the Constitutionally-stated right to keep and bear arms.

They are not the same arguments and Roe reversal is not a bell-weather case for 2A constriction.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Roe was reversed because it turned on a fabricated protracted alleged right of personal body privacy (the Constitutional right to have an abortion). Even RGB believed that Roe was a faulty decision. See: https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/j...s-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit

Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

SCOTUS reversed saying there was no outright statement in the Constitution preserving a right to abortion and the text and tradition supported that context. Without a Constitutional right, the activity was returned to the individual states under state sovereignty.

Heller and Bruen are based on the Constitutionally-stated right to keep and bear arms.

They are not the same arguments and Roe reversal is not a bell-weather case for 2A constriction.

The 14th amendment is used for basically everything regarding our personal freedom though, The due process clause also is used for interracial marriage, and subsequently same sex marriage. Ironically Clarence Thomas has written about how he disagrees with the same sex marriage resolution even though it uses the same language as interracial marriage. the reason Ginsburg didn't like it wasn't that she didn't believe in the underlying concept of the due process clause but that she didn't think the concept went far enough to protect all of women's rights, she still believed the constitution protected the right to an abortion but it was more fundamental than privacy and the right to liberty it should have been based in equality. The current court could have reversed the judgement but written it in a way that protected women's rights but they instead had a very political goal.

The reality is the interpretation of the constitution will be folded into whatever shape the people in charge want to, there is no absolute interpretation and I agree with the other poster that just simply setting a precedent for repealing such a landmark and important case opens up to the exact opposite happening if there is an anti gun majority. Just look at the response here to Texas redistricting, if you try to do too much at once you get an extreme over-correction. The next federal administration will likely be implementing even more bureaucracy to prevent the gutting of federal agencies for instance.

 

[SomeOne]

The 14th amendment is used for basically everything regarding our personal freedom though, The due process clause also is used for interracial marriage, and subsequently same sex marriage. Ironically Clarence Thomas has written about how he disagrees with the same sex marriage resolution even though it uses the same language as interracial marriage. the reason Ginsburg didn't like it wasn't that she didn't believe in the underlying concept of the due process clause but that she didn't think the concept went far enough to protect all of women's rights, she still believed the constitution protected the right to an abortion but it was more fundamental than privacy and the right to liberty it should have been based in equality. The current court could have reversed the judgement but written it in a way that protected women's rights but they instead had a very political goal.

This is merely your interpretation. Nothing in the Constitution protects the abortion rights. SCOTUS ruling was merely stating the obvious fact, that the medical regulations belong to the sovereign States.

The reality is the interpretation of the constitution will be folded into whatever shape the people in charge want to, there is no absolute interpretation and I agree with the other poster that just simply setting a precedent for repealing such a landmark and important case opens up to the exact opposite happening

It does not. Roe opinion was absolutely political, based on the fundamentally flawed doctrine. It was a well-known nuisance.

 

[Dvrjon]

the reason Ginsburg didn't like it wasn't that she didn't believe in the underlying concept of the due process clause but that she didn't think the concept went far enough to protect all of women's rights, she still believed the constitution protected the right to an abortion but it was more fundamental than privacy and the right to liberty it should have been based in equality. The current court could have reversed the judgement but written it in a way that protected women's rights but they instead had a very political goal.

The reality is the interpretation of the constitution will be folded into whatever shape the people in charge want to, there is no absolute interpretation and I agree with the other poster that just simply setting a precedent for repealing such a landmark and important case opens up to the exact opposite happening if there is an anti gun majority.

While I don’t disagree, the larger point is that Roe was decided on what you accurately characterize as an “underlying concept” of a Constitutional Right.

2A cases have not been decided on underlying concepts; they have been decided on grounds of the historical meaning of the text, history and tradition of the actual Constitutional Right language, not some extrapolation or derivative of that language. That makes them a bit harder to overturn.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

While I don’t disagree, the larger point is that Roe was decided on what you accurately characterize as an “underlying concept” of a Constitutional Right.

2A cases have not been decided on underlying concepts; they have been decided on grounds of the historical meaning of the text, history and tradition of the actual Constitutional Right language, not some extrapolation or derivative of that language. That makes them a bit harder to overturn.

indeed. I still thinks it's more shaky than you give it credit for though because there will always be some kind of limit to what we allow as "arms", that's the basis of all gun control as it is and why it's mostly held up. That yes you can have guns but not if they are especially dangerous i.e. have too many bullets and fires too fast. Depending on who interprets it it's 10 rounds vs 50 rounds and 1 shot per second vs 5, and is an AR15 an "assault weapon" or a "modern sporting rifle". For instance in Bruen, Kavanaugh quoted Heller:

"In Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that this right “is not unlimited,” adding: “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. … We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.”

 

[SomeOne]

indeed. I still thinks it's more shaky than you give it credit for though because there will always be some kind of limit to what we allow as "arms", that's the basis of all gun control as it is and why it's mostly held up. That yes you can have guns but not if they are especially dangerous i.e. have too many bullets and fires too fast. Depending on who interprets it it's 10 rounds vs 50 rounds and 1 shot per second vs 5, and is an AR15 an "assault weapon" or a "modern sporting rifle". For instance in Bruen, Kavanaugh quoted Heller:

The litmus test established by SCOTUS is "dangerous and unusual". Not just dangerous, not just unusual, not dangerous or unusual. It's both.
Now, the state must prove that a gun with 10 round mag is unusual. It's only possible if the judge panel consists of the liberal political activists, who simply turn a blind eye on the reality.

 

[Dvrjon]

indeed. I still thinks it's more shaky than you give it credit for though because there will always be some kind of limit to what we allow as "arms", that's the basis of all gun control as it is and why it's mostly held up. That yes you can have guns but not if they are especially dangerous i.e. have too many bullets and fires too fast. Depending on who interprets it it's 10 rounds vs 50 rounds and 1 shot per second vs 5, and is an AR15 an "assault weapon" or a "modern sporting rifle".

////////

The litmus test established by SCOTUS is "dangerous and unusual". Not just dangerous, not just unusual, not dangerous or unusual. It's both.
Now, the state must prove that a gun with 10 round mag is unusual. It's only possible if the judge panel consists of the liberal political activists, who simply turn a blind eye on the reality.

From Justice Scalia in Heller:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

And the state has already perverted that to be “unusually dangerous” (and some have continued the perversion to be “especially dangerous”). Under this rubric, a magazine in and of itself, is not unusually dangerous, but a +10-round mag is unusually dangerous. Again displaying the idea of extrapolating and twisting black letter rulings to suit an “underlying” concept. Duncan, when reviewed, should put an end to that nonsense and affirm that what the Court said is what the Court said, and not what the State wants in place to return to “means-ends” and “interest balancing” of societal risks.(See Bruen; One Step Too Many.)

 

[SomeOne]

From Heller:

And the state has already perverted that to be “unusually dangerous”. I.e., a magazine in an of itself, is not unusually dangerous, but a +10-round mag is unusually dangerous. Again, the idea of extrapolating and twisting black letter rulings to suit an “underlying” concept. Duncan, when reviewed, should put an end to that nonsense and affirm that what the Court said is what the Court said.

I hope SCOTUS will stand for their opinions. Otherwise, what's the purpose of SCOTUS? 11 round mag is no more dangerous than 10 round mag. And it's absolutely not unusual. Also, there is no such a legal concept as a "military grade" semi-automatic AR-15 rifle.

 

[Dvrjon]

I hope SCOTUS will stand for their opinions. Otherwise, what's the purpose of SCOTUS? 11 round mag is no more dangerous than 10 round mag. And it's absolutely not unusual. Also, there is no such a legal concept as a "military grade" semi-automatic AR-15 rifle.

Frankly, up until Freedom Week, LCMs were unusual in California. Of course, that’s because they’d been banned for 2 decades.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Frankly, up until Freedom Week, LCMs were unusual in California. Of course, that’s because they’d been banned for 2 decades.

I was just about to make that point. And Sacramento had a mass shooting only a few years ago that involved a glock.switch and 33rd magazines. My hope is obviously that this court doesn't leave it open ended and us very specific about whats constitutionally inclusive of arms

 

[Dvrjon]

I was just about to make that point. And Sacramento had a mass shooting only a few years ago that involved a glock.switch and 33rd magazines. My hope is obviously that this court doesn't leave it open ended and us very specific about whats constitutionally inclusive of arms

It wasn’t a “mass shooting”. It was a gang banging. Crips/Bloods; 3 of the dead were gang members. The Sacramento case will be dropped for self-defense. Smiley (Felon, Glock w/switch, LCM) died in jail of accidental overdose, and they’ll pin him as the aggressor. The rest will go down for lesser charges. But, regardless of a ruling in Duncan, it won’t affect them or their friends.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

It wasn’t a “mass shooting”. It was a gang banging. Crips/Bloods; 3 of the dead were gang members. The Sacramento case will be dropped for self-defense. Smiley (Felon, Glock w/switch, LCM) died in jail of accidental overdose, and they’ll pin him as the aggressor. The rest will go down for lesser charges. But, regardless of a ruling in Duncan, it won’t affect them or their friends.

There's obviously no one definition, however the one I think makes the most sense is a mass shooting is one that lacks personal targets. So in this case there were 16 people shot and only 4 of them were intended targets. I would characterize it as both. Colloquially every bit of the media and police refer to the event as a mass shooting so that's what I call it. Either way, I'm not trying to justify the magazine bans I'm for having as many bullets as I like, I'm just saying that this case is not a slam dunk as much as I wish it were.

 

[Dvrjon]

There's obviously no one definition, however the one I think makes the most sense is a mass shooting is one that lacks personal targets.

A bit more thread drift….

Sacramento leadership likes “mass shooting” because those are one-offs done by not really stable people. The idea that gangs have running gun battles on crowded streets implies the cops have lost, therefore, leadership has failed. Leaders don’t want that.