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

Jcwatchdog said:
Yes it’s about 10 years too long, but today there was nothing they could do, aside from a per curiam, which we all knew wouldn’t really happen. But it took time to get a court that wasn’t hostile to the 2nd amendment. Can you image what a Hillary Clinton court would have done at this point?
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • Blog-Disgust-SteveCarrell.gif
    Blog-Disgust-SteveCarrell.gif
    492.8 KB · Views: 48
Pythonfan said:
Justice delayed is justice denied. Duncan, for example, has been going for about a decade.

Midterms are around the corner. A lot can happen in 1
Click to expand...

If they had GVR, there was a potential that nothing was going to be done for many years, basically resetting everything again. Or if they had denied them completely. I’ll admit I hated seeing a gay cake ruling before these, but it happened the way it happened. Just be thankful this was the best situation we could have hoped for. This will potentially destroy all AW bans, magazine bans, not to mention the roster will be next on the chopping block. I’ll wait a year for that.
 
Pythonfan said:
But it would have been nice to see the USSC take on the 9th directly in a 2a case. Has USSC ever granted a 9th Circuit 2a case, or a California 2a related case?
Click to expand...
Wolford is a 2A case out of Hawai'i and through the 9 CA. It was just recently decided against Hawai'i.
 
Dvrjon said:
Viramontes and Grant combined for Cert based on Viramontes question.

Viramontes goes to ARs and LCMs (Military weapons)
Grant goes to AR 15 possession and "unusually dangerous".
Click to expand...
Maybe this evening I'll find time to actually read Viramontes and Grant, and then read what question (what part of the two cases) the court actually granted cert on. It's common for the court to pick out only one question from a case and only opine on that.
 
My main concern for CA residents is the state will say "Assault Weapons" aren't "banned", you can still buy them, they just have to have fixed magazine. They will do their mental gymnastics and call fixed mag rifles "assault weapons" now.

I am assuming it will depend upon the technicalities of what is ruled as unconstitutional.
 
treelogger said:
Maybe this evening I'll find time to actually read Viramontes and Grant, and then read what question (what part of the two cases) the court actually granted cert on. It's common for the court to pick out only one question from a case and only opine on that.
Click to expand...
Frankly, I pulled the early Viramontes association with mags from a SCOTUS Blog entry which listed it (of course, It's not at hand right now).

However, I'm not seeing it in the proceedings. The initial pleading is on AWs, only. The pleading for Grant is also limited to ARs.

So, a direct approach to the magazine issue doesn't appear to be in the pleadings of either. However (pure speculation) it might be reached by SCOTUS needing to define "arms" in these cases. (After another quick scan of Viramontes, it seems a weak vehicle).
 
Last edited:
Dvrjon said:
Frankly, I pulled the early Viramontes association with mags from a SCOTUS Blog entry with listed it (of course, It's not at hand right now).

However, I'm not seeing it in the proceedings. The initial pleading is on AWs, only. The pleading for Grant also limited.

So, a direct approach to the magazine issue doesn't appear to be in the pleadings of either. However (pure speculation) it may be reached by SCOTUS needing to define "arms" in these cases. (After another quick scan of Viramontes, it seems a weak vehicle).
Click to expand...
Yes, so far it's AR-15 question only, which is a big split nationwide. Nothing on LCM, which I am very surprised about. However, three LCM related cases don't show the status update yet. There is a hope, still.
 
treelogger said:
Maybe this evening I'll find time to actually read Viramontes and Grant, and then read what question (what part of the two cases) the court actually granted cert on. It's common for the court to pick out only one question from a case and only opine on that.
Click to expand...
Both feature AR-15 legality under 2A and state laws only. No LCM challenge.
 
I'm thrilled that SCOTUS picked up Viramontes. From my point of view this would be a bigger win than Duncan.
 
JackRydden224 said:
I'm thrilled that SCOTUS picked up Viramontes. From my point of view this would be a bigger win than Duncan.
Click to expand...
It will be a louder boom for sure. However, if LCM is not decided, nothing stops the states from gutting it out to one round mag limit.

BTW, AR-15 legal argument is a slam dunk with this SCOTUS.
 
LarpAnonymous said:
My main concern for CA residents is the state will say "Assault Weapons" aren't "banned", you can still buy them, they just have to have fixed magazine. They will do their mental gymnastics and call fixed mag rifles "assault weapons" now.

I am assuming it will depend upon the technicalities of what is ruled as unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Yes, they could call fixed mag rifles “AW”, but then what are you going to call them if you remove the fixed mag?
 
SomeOne said:
I agree, but the legal arguments might differ. The three LCM cases show pending. Let's hope we'll see the cert on those in our lifespan ;)
Click to expand...
To which 3 are you referring?
SomeOne said:
It will be a louder boom for sure. However, if LCM is not decided, nothing stops the states from gutting it out to one round mag limit.

BTW, AR-15 legal argument is a slam dunk with this SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
Nothing with this court, especially for next year, is a slam Dunk.
SomeOne said:
Big Sheeeet... Duncan is denied.
Click to expand...
Since it hasn't been denied, I presume this is your personal opinion on the meager importance of Duncan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom