18+ Content Warning

By clicking Enter, you confirm you are 18 years of age or older and agree to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws.

Notice: Any content or member activity - including anything you may buy, sell, transfer, or discuss - must comply with current and upcoming laws.

Members are encouraged to stay informed: California Firearm Laws: 2026 Outlook & 2025 Recap . Responsibility for compliance rests solely with the individual member.

What's new
  • Welcome

    Welcome to CAguns

    Join California’s gun owner community. Create a free account to join discussions and explore member features.

    Join freeLog in
Rost Martin R1MF comes to Califnoria

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

Dvrjon said:
I agree, but the problem lies not in the process laid out, but in the lack of specificity (or the abundance of ambiguity) which the Court provided as guidance. Now we have to define exactly what is an arm versus an accoutrement. Creative minds find that Large Capacity Magazines are analogous to community powder storage (magazines). And the restriction of the right to carry a firearm in public isn’t a 2A issue, but actually a property rights issue.

The Bruen 2A Gordon Knot is so loosely laced, no sharp blade is needed to untie it…dull minds seem to be working well to unravel it.
Click to expand...
I never understood why SCOTUS just didn't apply strict scrutiny to 2A cases. The right to bear arms is a fundamental right and other restrictions of fundamental rights such as speech, privacy and/or interstate travel are reviewd under strict scrutiny. Bruen seemed like overkill and a way for Thomas to push originalism back into relevance.
 
Because of a variety of reasons:
  1. Strict scrutiny is an invitation for frivolous suits. Because everyone (who has no clue) thinks "strict scrutiny means the right can't be infringed at all". That just means a ton of work for federal courts to get rid of silly cases.
  2. Because strict scrutiny isn't actually strict. As much as I dislike Justice Thomas (or more accurately, his inane reasoning), one of his observations (in an opinion or dissent) is that strict scrutiny is applied highly inconsistently, and he is right on that.
  3. Strict scrutiny doesn't mean that the right is sacrosanct. It only means that the state has to do their homework when restricting it. For example, there is a statistic out there that roughly 2/3 of all laws that are challenged under strict scrutiny over cases of religious freedom survive in court.
EDITed to add: I would love it if the US legal system had basic human rights actually written down coherently, had some serious respect for those rights, and employed a real form of "strict scrutiny" in evaluating the power of the state. But that's not the world we live in. You go to war with the legal system you have, not the one you want. And in our current one, asking for "strict scrutiny" gives you a pacifier, not something useful.
 
Last edited:
treelogger said:
Because of a variety of reasons:
  1. Strict scrutiny is an invitation for frivolous suits. Because everyone (who has no clue) thinks "strict scrutiny means the right can't be infringed at all". That just means a ton of work for federal courts to get rid of silly cases.
  2. Because strict scrutiny isn't actually strict. As much as I dislike Justice Thomas (or more accurately, his inane reasoning), one of his observations (in an opinion or dissent) is that strict scrutiny is applied highly inconsistently, and he is right on that.
  3. Strict scrutiny doesn't mean that the right is sacrosanct. It only means that the state has to do their homework when restricting it. For example, there is a statistic out there that roughly 2/3 of all laws that are challenged under strict scrutiny over cases of religious freedom survive in court.
EDITed to add: I would love it if the US legal system had basic human rights actually written down coherently, had some serious respect for those rights, and employed a real form of "strict scrutiny" in evaluating the power of the state. But that's not the world we live in. You go to war with the legal system you have, not the one you want. And in our current one, asking for "strict scrutiny" gives you a pacifier, not something useful.
Click to expand...

Re the first bullet, while I tend to agree with some of your points, I don't think the Bruen test has been much better in practice. Look at Rahimi which tried to clarify some nuances in Bruen and ended up with a Thomas dissent and five separate concurrences.

Re the second bullet and third bullets, there is going to be inconsistency unless the Court applies a bright-line rule. That's just the nature of the US legal system as you pointed out. I think Thomas's criticisms on the tiers of scrutiny are well-founded - they're a judicial construct and not based in the Consitution, and they are often applied inconsistently. This was in his dissent in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.

I'm not quite sure your use of language re sancrosanct rights vs fundamental rights. I have always used the term fundamental rights but assuming they're synonymous, strict scruinty is applied to fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, religion, right to bear arms, etc.... I don't think we have a higher standard of review and I'm not sure Bruen is more rigorous than the application of strict scrutiny.
 
adrkwan said:
I never understood why SCOTUS just didn't apply strict scrutiny to 2A cases. The right to bear arms is a fundamental right and other restrictions of fundamental rights such as speech, privacy and/or interstate travel are reviewd under strict scrutiny. Bruen seemed like overkill and a way for Thomas to push originalism back into relevance.
Click to expand...
Any standard is going to be pointless when roughly half the judiciary doesn’t actually buy something is a right.

Before Bruen, look at how the antigun circuits created the infamous “two step analysis” where every decision was a forgone “this doesn’t implicate the core 2A right, but even if it did it stands up to intermediate scrutiny” and nearly narrowed Heller and McDonald into nothing.

Likewise even if Bruen established strict scrutiny, you’d still have antigun judges and circuits saying “we find banning concealed carry in the wilderness, blanket banning 11 round magazines, and prohibiting the commercial sale of the most popular handgun but allowing private sales/private import etc. all satisfy strict scrutiny”

I don’t think Bruen’s standard is bad or difficult at all, unless you’re coming from a standpoint that all gun control is valid. But on a deeper level, I think the 2A as written and passed does allow a lot more than people today are comfortable with, and an honest judiciary would rule that if people are uncomfortable with surplus machine guns being shipped straight to people’s homes, then a constitutional convention should be called to further clarify what exactly the 2A means.
 
Losely worded decisions are worse than no decision. Many conflicting issues are the result. Without further clarification we are left spinning in the wind.
 
@Dvrjon so what happened? No update on the next movement, which looks like potentially later next month?

Also, what exactly is happening with Miller? Last update I saw about it was in 2023.
 
Last edited:
Jimi Jah said:
Losely worded decisions are worse than no decision. Many conflicting issues are the result. Without further clarification we are left spinning in the wind.
Click to expand...
Isn’t that the truth… after Bruen, look at how CA reacted “oh, we can’t do this, BUT we CAN limit how many guns you can buy in a 30 day period. Oh, we can’t make it only 1? We’ll make it 3 then. AND we’re going to add a tax, AND make it illegal to carry pretty much everywhere, AND we’re going to require barrels to go through an FFL and have a background check done on them, and you have to show ID to buy parts. Bruen didn’t say we couldn’t do that!”- CA’s Legislature of idiots.

Bruen wasn’t the huge win everyone thought it was. If anything, it just made our situation worse because SCOTUS didn’t have the balls to explicitly say ‘shall not be infringed.’
 
Tbh, all I know is that I wish I could make 300k/year while taking random 3 week vacations in February.
 
Deleted member 31158 said:
Isn’t that the truth… after Bruen, look at how CA reacted “oh, we can’t do this, BUT we CAN limit how many guns you can buy in a 30 day period. Oh, we can’t make it only 1? We’ll make it 3 then. AND we’re going to add a tax, AND make it illegal to carry pretty much everywhere, AND we’re going to require barrels to go through an FFL and have a background check done on them, and you have to show ID to buy parts. Bruen didn’t say we couldn’t do that!”- CA’s Legislature of idiots.

Bruen wasn’t the huge win everyone thought it was. If anything, it just made our situation worse because SCOTUS didn’t have the balls to explicitly say ‘shall not be infringed.’
Click to expand...
Makes me wonder, its already tax on tax (fees), and if the "fee" per mile driven deal becomes law- is that a tax trifecta?
 
skb720 said:

Duncan v. Bonta (25-198)

Supreme Court case (25-198) — tracked on SCOTUSblog.
www.scotusblog.com www.scotusblog.com

02/13/2026 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/20/2026.
Click to expand...
I was just updating Post #1. Good lookin' out.
Results will be due out on 23 Feb.
Gator's Custom Guns is in the same conference.

(Gator’s Custom Guns: Same as Duncan, but developed through Washington State courts with very little record developed and no federal record in place. Certing Duncan and holding Gator's will serve to settle both.)
 
Last edited:
shroom said:
Tbh, all I know is that I wish I could make 300k/year while taking random 3 week vacations in February.
Click to expand...
What makes you think they are on vacation? They have to spend some time out of the court room to research and write (and read) draft decisions on cases they’ve heard/will hear.
 
Last edited:
The Second Amendment is written clearly for those who are educated and understand grammar.

Bruen clearly outlines the steps for evaluating a law. Anti-gun judges understand it but deliberately mess around in their decisions. There are no “errors” in anything they do. Those judges know they are violating Bruen and know they will face no career level consequence.
 
tomrkba said:
After all, it’s only been a decade or so :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, not a high priority for them but, just be grateful they haven't denied certiorari. If you read the list that was posted, the VAST majority of cases appealed to SCOTUS are denied a hearing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom