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

[Ro-bo]

Right now, Duncan is positioned with not one, but two Final Decisions (pre-Bruen and post-Bruen). It has won at the district and the appellate panel levels each time. It has lost en banc each time. The Justices have a huge, fully-developed case with an obvious pattern which demands scrutiny at their level. Those are the positives for this case.

And yet all that, and it's relisted again. And again. And ????
It's like you're making the point for me here but then wholesale dismissing the conflicting actions of the court (i.e. why continue to kick the can down the road of a fully ripe case???)

We want the same thing. I'm merely telling people to temper their expectations given the history here.

 

[adrkwan]

I wasn’t talking about only 2A. Barrett tends to lean left, she’s not Jackson or Sotmayer far left, but she’s also not Alito or Thomas right. In other words, she calls herself a ‘conservative’ but is in reality a wildcard. I still don’t know why Trump nominated her, but I’m sure he had his reasons.

My guess was for Roe but who knows.

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

And yet all that, and it's relisted again. And again. And ????
It's like you're making the point for me here but then wholesale dismissing the conflicting actions of the court (i.e. why continue to kick the can down the road of a fully ripe case???)

We want the same thing. I'm merely telling people to temper their expectations given the history here.

I dont think they can foot for much longer. With Mids approaching they need to put up or shut up. No one will turn out unless they get these wins, which I believe they are slow walking in order to have some victories during the run up.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

I thought she has only had one 2A opinion (dissent) and it was pro-2A - Kanter v. Barr?

She voted with Kavanaugh to uphold the atf rule on ghost guns. I wouldn't necessarily say that this is inherently bad but it does show she's not a 2A absolutist like Scalia and Thomas who were the only dissents. It wouldn't surprise me if she upheld Duncan along with Kavanaugh.

My guess was for Roe but who knows.

I don't think Trump had much to do with it, she was a Heritage Foundation pick like all the others.

 

[adrkwan]

And yet all that, and it's relisted again. And again. And ????
It's like you're making the point for me here but then wholesale dismissing the conflicting actions of the court (i.e. why continue to kick the can down the road of a fully ripe case???)

We want the same thing. I'm merely telling people to temper their expectations given the history here.

Yup. Limited space (I think 45 total this term) and two 2A issued already scheduled for next term. Three Justices also wanted to take the AR15 ban last time it came up, with Kavanaugh basically waiting for addition appeals to come up. You need four to grant review. I’m guessing they take the AR15 ban and are torn on the regular cap mag issue until they run through the list of other cases.

 

[Dvrjon]

Thanks but I didn't need it explained to me the first time. I'm well aware of how it works and it's not a hard fast rule anyway (as has been pointed out by me, SCOTUS can very well fast track cases if they see fit).

You specifically asked me to:

Now do these cases, all which had to do with magazine capacity:
Ocean State Tactical (denied)
Hanson v. DC (denied)
Harrel v. Raoul (denied)

I’d already done that but you kept asking for explanation. Those cases were PIs without any decision on merits and no developed record.

 

[Dvrjon]

And yet all that, and it's relisted again. And again. And ????
It's like you're making the point for me here but then wholesale dismissing the conflicting actions of the court (i.e. why continue to kick the can down the road of a fully ripe case???)

We want the same thing. I'm merely telling people to temper their expectations given the history here.

My sense is that the Court is well aware of what was, is, and will be in the pipeline for 2A. I suspect they are looking at all of the opportunities to find a fully-developed case which goes to the basic issues of Bruen application. They’ll pick one (or two) and hold everything else until they rule. Then, everything else gets remanded and we start over. That’s why, although Duncan is an ammunition/mag case, it may be a suitable vehicle to use to clean up the base issues which affect all Bruen analyses.

 

[Ro-bo]

You specifically asked me to:

I’d already done that but you kept asking for explanation. Those cases were PIs without any decision on merits and no developed record.

I "asked" rhetorically, tongue-in-cheek with an extra smattering of sarcasm.
The state's response to the petition goes out of its way to mention that scotus ignored all three of those cases. Plaintiffs (CRPA mostly) have called that a weak reply, but they're in the business of selling 2A victories by way of donations so of course they're going to downplay that. In my opinion, the state has it right in that respect. There's demonstrable evidence that scotus doesn't want to engage this particular controversy (i.e. magazine capacity restrictions) in any manner whatsoever. That's especially true now that Duncan is waiting right on their doorstep and they seem disinterested. The reasoning CRPA gave for denying the other cases which you've echoed here, fails when it comes to Duncan. Until they say otherwise, that translates to acceptance of lower court's treatment of Bruen, which is a ty deal when it comes to the 9th circuit and just about everything we've sued for. All that bodes ill for us.

The fact that the petition to hear Duncan --which we all agree is the most ripe case of all those recent ones which ended in denials-- isn't being picked up immediately by scotus for review, reinforces the state's position even more. If it's outright denied, well... you know where this is going.

We can guess and guess and guess why this is happening but I have a feeling the support isn't there outside Thomas. If it's going to take a lot of arm-twisting to grant cert. to this one, it's maybe better that the court doesn't review it at all. That may be part of the plan too, as I said, to get a better case up there which will address the magazine bans obliquely, along with other elements left hanging post Bruen. That's the only silver lining I can see, if it's indeed what's happening.

 

[Ro-bo]

My sense is that the Court is well aware of what was, is, and will be in the pipeline for 2A. I suspect they are looking at all of the opportunities to find a fully-developed case which goes to the basic issues of Bruen application. They’ll pick one (or two) and hold everything else until they rule. Then, everything else gets remanded and we start over. That’s why, although Duncan is an ammunition/mag case, it may be a suitable vehicle to use to clean up the base issues which affect all Bruen analyses.

Right, except if they were married to Duncan, I think it would've been granted review on first pass. Now we're looking at January and the chances diminish the longer it languishes.

I think it's more likely they're looking for a better vehicle than Duncan for the reason above.

 

[Ro-bo]

I dont think they can foot for much longer. With Mids approaching they need to put up or shut up. No one will turn out unless they get these wins, which I believe they are slow walking in order to have some victories during the run up.

They're also in a pickle between undoing too much of Bruen and further emasculating the spirit of that decision the way Rahimi played out (laws aren't "trapped in amber", etc.), and/or having another case that's meant to clarify Bruen further, that fails to do so in practice.

If we assume that the Bruen majority is aligned with the 2A community's opinions, in that the lower courts who are typically hostile to the 2A like the 9th are missing the point of Bruen, it's maybe reasonable to believe they're waiting for the perfect case to give closure to all these loose ends in one go. That's the optimistic view.

 

[Dvrjon]

I "asked" rhetorically, tongue-in-cheek with an extra smattering of sarcasm.

And I responded rhetorically, tongue-in-cheek with a smattering of cynicism.

It’s cool, Dude. I’m in the Christmas/Holiday spirit of giving, so I’m just trying to help get your post count up.

Best.

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/9/2026

 

[GeeQ87]

Can there be an argument made that new laws requiring ID to purchase magazines would hold those purchasing them “liable”. That being said, is a magazine capacity ban necessary?

 

[GoldensRule]

Can there be an argument made that new laws requiring ID to purchase magazines would hold those purchasing them “liable”. That being said, is a magazine capacity ban necessary?

So, you sell 20, 30, 50 or 100 round mags to someone with an ID who then uses them to go shoot up a concert or a movie theater or religious service, if the shooter survives, civil liability is likely the very least of his worries.

That said, I'd love to read the argument you would make.

 

[Skilly]

i wonder what the 1/9 updates will bring tomorrow from SCOTUS.

 

[HyperMacktive]

So, you sell 20, 30, 50 or 100 round mags to someone with an ID who then uses them to go shoot up a concert or a movie theater or religious service, if the shooter survives, civil liability is likely the very least of his worries.

That said, I'd love to read the argument you would make.

I mean bad people are going to do bad things, we shouldn't punish law abiding citizens because there are going to be criminals out there wanting to do bad things. We could stop making soft target locations where there are no guns allowed if the criminal knew they would be shot soon after doing something bad most likely they wouldn't do it. Constitutional carry would be a good start.

Honestly if there had to be any type of ban on magazines than they could atleast allow us our standard size 15 17 round magazines at the least. I cant even find 10 round magazines because there sold out everywhere for my gun. Personally I dont think there should be any ban on our 2nd amendment of any kind criminals will find a way to commit crimes and get weaponry if theyre determined to do harm. Gun control only hurts law abiding citizens criminals already break the law they dont care about new laws.

 

[Warpspeed]

So @Dvrjon , we wait until tomorrow ( Monday ) morning @ 6:30 AM and hope for Cert ?

 

[Dvrjon]

So @Dvrjon , we wait until tomorrow ( Monday ) morning @ 6:30 AM and hope for Cert ?

Yup, or relisting. Anything other than denial.

Just remember, if it isn’t under “Granted” or “Denied” when the Orders are displayed, it’s probably going to be relisted within the next 48 hrs.

 

[Dvrjon]

Orders don’t appear to include Duncan. Case # 25-198.

 

[doggman61]

Orders don’t appear to include Duncan. Case # 25-198.

AKA ball kicked down the road?