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

[treelogger]

Somewhere, I’ve got copies of emails between Alison Merrilees and one of the Brady bunch. The Brady gun was reaching out to make Merrilees aware of the “gun nuts” on CalGuns and some of the strategies being discussed. She told him DOJ monitored that site regularly and it was sometimes helpful to know their next steps. Mostly, it was not complimentary towards the group.

Yes, remember that. When the OLL thing hit, the DoJ (meaning Alison) was quite broadsided, and for a while didn't know what end was up. And the public interacting with the DoJ was able to see into their decision making process, which is exactly where the "2 weeks" meme came from. I was working with other people in Sackatomatoes at the time, and got some backchannel info about how clueless the DoJ was. On the other hand, the Calguns people were also not very competent, driven by giant egos, bigger dreams, infighting, and lack of legal understanding.

The best thing that happened to that organization was Jerry Brown as AG. The DoJ in general and the BoF worked pretty darn well, and came in significantly under budget. The second worst thing that happened to it was Kamala Harris (Bill Lockyer was the worst, he was Alison's boss). Since then, it has been not completely incompetent, but also not great.

Fun times. Let's see what happens next; I see gun rights (and gun ownership) in California as a generation-long journey, and the minor victories (like Harrott) and minor setbacks (like SB 53) in the context of the big picture.

 

[treelogger]

I’m expecting them to hold Duncan and Gator’s through the Summer to see what percolates up and gives them a cleaner look at the hardware cases coming through.

That’s my “Glass half-full” view.

I like your optimism, and raise you another glass (also half full).

 

[Dvrjon]

I like your optimism, and raise you another glass (also half full).

Hey! You’re up to a full bottle…;-)

 

[Jcwatchdog]

I’m still not seeing traction for either Wolford or Hemani to provide results which directly affect Duncan. The Court likes tightly-defined decisions, and it will take some mental gymnastics to apply the results of these to Duncan. Plus, GVRing Duncan a third time makes the court

If there’s anything at all negative, just in the general sense, you know the 9th will give it traction. Even if they have to twist it into a pretzel, they will do it.

 

[Dvrjon]

If there’s anything at all negative, just in the general sense, you know the 9th will give it traction. Even if they have to twist it into a pretzel, they will do it.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is not in control of any of these cases. All of this is at the Supreme Court of the United States and has been accepted for certiorari. Wolford and Hemani have already been heard by SCOTUS and we expect final decisions on them within 2 weeks. Duncan is awaiting a decision as to whether it will be heard.

At this point, the 9th isn’t even a passing whisper.

 

[Jcwatchdog]

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is not in control of any of these cases. All of this is at the Supreme Court of the United States and has been accepted for certiorari. Wolford and Hemani have already been heard by SCOTUS and we expect final decisions on them within 2 weeks. Duncan is awaiting a decision as to whether it will be heard.

At this point, the 9th isn’t even a passing whisper.

When Wolford and Hemani decisions are released, and if Duncan is GVR again to the 9th, you can bet anything negative in the scotus decisions in either of those two cases will be twisted to arrive at their original result again for Duncan. Even if those cases have nothing to do with hardware, they’ll do what they need to do to make it so.

 

[Dvrjon]

When Wolford and Hemani decisions are released, and if Duncan is GVR again to the 9th, you can bet anything negative in the scotus decisions in either of those two cases will be twisted to arrive at their original result again for Duncan. Even if those cases have nothing to do with hardware, they’ll do what they need to do to make it so.

OK, that’s clearer. But let’s see what SCOTUS plays before we give the 9th another draw.

 

[tenemae]

For those still in the speculation game, CRPA TV dropped a video where Chuck Michel (President of CRPA) gives his take on what's happening and what might happen. Bit of a TLDW: he admits this is all wild-ass-guessing

 

[treelogger]

Is it worth mentioning here that the Supreme Court just refused cert for a case out of New York? Some NY State law enlarged the loopholes in the PLCA (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms), and pro-gun groups had sued the state claiming it violated the PLCA. They lost at district and appeals, and the Supreme Court just let that loss stand.

No, I have no idea what that implies, or whether it even implies anything.

 

[Dvrjon]

Is it worth mentioning here that the Supreme Court just refused cert for a case out of New York? Some NY State law enlarged the loopholes in the PLCA (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms), and pro-gun groups had sued the state claiming it violated the PLCA. They lost at district and appeals, and the Supreme Court just let that loss stand.

No, I have no idea what that implies, or whether it even implies anything.

It was a challenge to states impinging on the Congressional directive of the PLCAA. The result of the case allows states to enforce statutes requiring the gun industry to use reasonable controls against unlawful possession and sales. A PLCAA scope case; not strictly a 2A issue and nothing that seems to go to the issue of 2A infringement by states.

 

[Jcwatchdog]

Is it worth mentioning here that the Supreme Court just refused cert for a case out of New York? Some NY State law enlarged the loopholes in the PLCA (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms), and pro-gun groups had sued the state claiming it violated the PLCA. They lost at district and appeals, and the Supreme Court just let that loss stand.

No, I have no idea what that implies, or whether it even implies anything.

There is something to be said about the quick tossing of this to the trash bin, along with the many other random cases that have already been denied.

I’d like to think they’re discussing which 2A case they will take, and maybe hold the rest. There are a lot to choose from. Some also have already been denied. But holding several notable ones this long, for just a denial with dissent doesn’t seem reasonable. And we know the 4 votes were there the last time with Snope, but Kavanaugh apparently has a soft spine. Maybe it’s hardening up. The only other thing I fear is GVR after the two 2nd amendment cases get released. Especially if Roberts writes either of them. Better than denied I guess, but it’s just more of the same kicking the can down the road.

 

[jclusin]

Hemani decision just dropped as per crpa email

 

[Dvrjon]

Hemani Opinion

Although CRPA is claiming a 7-2 margin, the Decision indicates.

Judgment​

Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Neil Gorsuch on Jun 18, 2026. Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Jackson wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Sotomayor. Justice Alito wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Kagan.

However, as previously discussed, this opinion is very narrow and focused on “who” may carry.

The Court held that this prosecution violated the Second Amendment. The reason was straightforward: the government tried to justify the ban by comparing marijuana users to “habitual drunkards” under old historical laws, but the Court found that analogy too weak. Those older laws generally applied to people whose drinking made them incapacitated, unable to manage their affairs, or dangerous. They did not apply simply because someone regularly used an intoxicant.

Not much direct relief there for Duncan, and it would seem far-fetched to GVR based on a weak analogy in historical law
for an analog which didn’t apply to Duncan.

 

[Toshiro Mifune]

Hemani decision just dropped as per crpa email

Waste of bandwidth IMO

Why didn’t they GVR that case twice and make them jump thru hoops for years on end?

 

[grandpapeepap]

The Supreme Court sided Thursday with a "habitual" marijuana user who challenged a federal law banning anyone who uses illegal drugs from legally possessing a firearm, a Second Amendment case that tested the limits of restricting gun ownership

looks like some gun cases are moving through the docket. score another one for freedom

 

[treelogger]

From the opinion:

The Court’s decision is narrow. It does not address efforts to ban addicts or those presently intoxicated from possessing a firearm; other prophylactic laws Congress might adopt after determining that users of a particular drug pose a special risk of misusing firearms; §922(g)(1)’s provision disarming individuals convicted of felonies; or whether the government could bring a prosecution under §922(g)(3)
accompanied by individualized proof that the defendant’s drug use renders him a danger to himself or others, or proof that a certain drug
always renders its users dangerous.

Note that in this summary paragraph, it nowhere talks about using this case as a general rule for how to interpret Bruen.

One important argument made by the opinion is that the prohibition against drugs lacks due process, in that you become prohibited automatically, leading to this footnote:

Certain other provisions of §922, such as subsections (g)(1) (disarming convicted felons) and (g)(4) (disarming any person “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution”), involve some manner of pre-deprivation process before an individual’s Second Amendment rights are lost. For that reason, they differ from subsection (g)(3) and “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt” on them.

To me, the impact here is the following: Several places on pp. 17 and 18, the opinion talks about how the law uses generalities to prohibit firearms, and thereby overreaches. It keeps repeating that to ban someone, the individual case needs to be looked at in the context of drug prohibitions. I like that kind of analysis, because it moves gun control legislation (and hopefully by extension all regulation) more into a "strict scrutiny" regime: Before forbidding something, the government has to be able to clearly explain that this very specific prohibition in this very specific situation will be effective. Note that the opinion explicitly doesn't allow that general law to apply to convicted felons etc., nor to other fields of regulation. But the impact is that the "means and ends" analysis that implies strict scrutiny.

Note that less than half of the opinion is about Bruen-style "historical analogue" discussion. While the opinion doesn't have the guts to throw out Bruen, it is mostly based on other established principles, such as due process or strict scrutiny. Justice Jackson points that out in her concurrence. Interestingly, the concurrence by justices Alito and Kagan (!) goes the opposite way, focusing how the prosecution mis-used Bruen's historical analogue method, but without criticizing the fundamental difficulty/impossibility of using Bruen.

Interesting times. But I agree with Dvrjon's conclusion: While interesting in and of itself, this case neither helps nor hinders Duncan.

 

[grandpapeepap]

From the opinion:

Note that in this summary paragraph, it nowhere talks about using this case as a general rule for how to interpret Bruen.

One important argument made by the opinion is that the prohibition against drugs lacks due process, in that you become prohibited automatically, leading to this footnote:


To me, the impact here is the following: Several places on pp. 17 and 18, the opinion talks about how the law uses generalities to prohibit firearms, and thereby overreaches. It keeps repeating that to ban someone, the individual case needs to be looked at in the context of drug prohibitions. I like that kind of analysis, because it moves gun control legislation (and hopefully by extension all regulation) more into a "strict scrutiny" regime: Before forbidding something, the government has to be able to clearly explain that this very specific prohibition in this very specific situation will be effective. Note that the opinion explicitly doesn't allow that general law to apply to convicted felons etc., nor to other fields of regulation. But the impact is that the "means and ends" analysis that implies strict scrutiny.

Note that less than half of the opinion is about Bruen-style "historical analogue" discussion. While the opinion doesn't have the guts to throw out Bruen, it is mostly based on other established principles, such as due process or strict scrutiny. Justice Jackson points that out in her concurrence. Interestingly, the concurrence by justices Alito and Kagan (!) goes the opposite way, focusing how the prosecution mis-used Bruen's historical analogue method, but without criticizing the fundamental difficulty/impossibility of using Bruen.

Interesting times. But I agree with Dvrjon's conclusion: While interesting in and of itself, this case neither helps nor hinders Duncan.

I liked Gorsuch bringing up how the founders were constantly drinking and alcohol doesnt prohibit someone from owning firearms. One more for America

 

[treelogger]

... and alcohol doesnt prohibit someone from owning firearms.

And yet it does, if they are a "habitual drunkard", and the ruling explicitly explains why this is so, as are the prohibitions on harder drugs (which do make people violent or crazy), felons, mental cases, and so on.

One more for America

America! In all its vibrant color and internal contradiction, with a bit of satire and humor. Great music.

 

[weaverftw]

I’m confused does this mean the feds have to remove the ‘"unlawful user" or addict of a controlled substance (including marijuana)’ from the list of prohibited persons?

 

[Jcwatchdog]

I’m confused does this mean the feds have to remove the ‘"unlawful user" or addict of a controlled substance (including marijuana)’ from the last of prohibited persons?

They might have to reword it in some way. I doubt they will remove it completely.