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

[couragewolf]

Please understand, the ultimate goal of the gun control lobby is total disarmament. They aren’t interested in Heller, MacDonald or Bruen.

Forty or so years ago I was a fly on the wall in meetings with the fathers of CA gun control Dave Roberti and Mike Roos. They, and the supporters in the room, considered the CA Assault Weapon Ban “a start”. From what we’ve seen added to the books since then (precursor parts anyone?) they weren’t kidding.

In the early 90’s Sen Moynihan of New York was pushing for federal legislation to impose a 10,000% tax on hollow-tipped bullets to make them prohibitively expensive, (hunting or sport shooting ammunition excepted) and to ban specific calibers, such as .25, .32, and 9mm, because they were disproportionately used in crimes. The intent was to “starve” guns to death.

In 2016, CA began regulating ammo, and in 2024 began taxing it at an additional 11%. Their dream continues.

A few years ago, prior to mail-in ballots, I went to my polling place, they found me on the rolls and stated I had already voted. They turned the book around, and someone had signed in my designated space. Their view was, “Oh well”. I had to provide ID to be allowed to vote. If that requirement was in place, the previous guy wouldn’t have been able to get through.

Personally, I think this is a very good idea. I’m against someone other than me taking my money out of my bank.

One thing I don't understand about this is that even with this in person validation process they recognized there was an error. An audit would recognize their errors if you voted in duplicate. It seems to me this is a pretty big non issue designed to stir up the emotional response of disbelieving vote outcomes and it really achieves next to nothing. On the other hand forcing the issue creates barriers to voting. Just like our right to own firearms is infringed by barriers to firearm ownership, our right to vote is infringed by barriers to voting. Our rights to free speech and freedom to travel are ALSO being infringed by border patrol checkpoints and algorithmic censorship.

The values based assessment is either you want to promote freedom or you want to infringe on it. Choosing which freedoms you do or don't like gatekeeping is a simple matter of choosing which kind of freedom taker you side with but you're all on the side of taking away someone elses freedoms to make yourself feel safer or better.

I do absolutely think a large contingent of voters(20% maybe) want to eliminate guns entirely. Some of them are republicans. Some of them are from New York. Some of them are heavily involved in real estate. All of those things.

 

[couragewolf]

What is a magazine?

It's a box with a spring. You don't need one to shoot a semi auto. One can press a single round into the chamber and shoot it. Rinse and repeat.

I have no problem avoiding them as my revolvers and lever rifles don't use them.

I can load 16 rounds into my Henry Golden Boy. Awaiting a California law to fix that.

belt fed uppers were always the solution

 

[Sparrow Dynamics]

First post: The case has been accepted for review by SCOTUS for Certiorari. Conference is expected on Nov 21. If denied, the prohibition stands. If accepted, we go to trial.

Huge bummer, but on Wednesday 11/12/25 SCOTUS changed the docket from Nov 21st to "Rescheduled". https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-198.html I hope they don't do what they did to the Ocean State case.

 

[couragewolf]

Huge bummer, but on Wednesday 11/12/25 SCOTUS changed the docket from Nov 21st to "Rescheduled". https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-198.html I hope they don't do what they did to the Ocean State case.

Funny how quick they are to hand the white house and corporations complete immunity from any and all actions no matter how harmful to our nations future but when it comes to addressing the constitutionality of widely apportioned rights they seem to turn softer than velvet.

Makes you really question who they're working for, cause it sure ain't us.

 

[Jcwatchdog]

Huge bummer, but on Wednesday 11/12/25 SCOTUS changed the docket from Nov 21st to "Rescheduled". https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-198.html I hope they don't do what they did to the Ocean State case.

We have to be positive. My hope is that they will reschedule to 12/5, the same day Viramontes v Cook County is scheduled, then take both the AW and mag ban together. That would be the ultimate.

 

[Walmart_AR15]

Better have your 10+ round belt purchased during freedom week. No new belt with more than 10 rounds are allowed.

 

[Walmart_AR15]

"One thing I don't understand about this is that even with this in person validation process they recognized there was an error. An audit would recognize their errors if you voted in duplicate"

So, what happen to the duplicate vote, both gets thrown out? Well then, anyone can just cancel my vote. Get the undocumented to vote using Repub voter's name or just have someone goes around different polling places and vote under someone else's name to cancel their vote.

 

[oneaudiopro]

Unfortunately all these 2nd amendment cases are all intertwined between not only the states, but the different judicial districts as well. I'm praying that SCOTUS will finally take these cases up and give us a definitive answer once and for all. If some of these judges actually followed the precedents layed out in Heller, MacDonald, and Bruen, a ruling from SCOTUS wouldn't be necessary. I lost count of how many times Judge Benitez ruled in our favor and each time was kicked back until they finally got their way. smh

 

[Jimi Jah]

Better have your 10+ round belt purchased during freedom week. No new belt with more than 10 rounds are allowed.

Does that include revolver belts?

 

[couragewolf]

"One thing I don't understand about this is that even with this in person validation process they recognized there was an error. An audit would recognize their errors if you voted in duplicate"

So, what happen to the duplicate vote, both gets thrown out? Well then, anyone can just cancel my vote. Get the undocumented to vote using Repub voter's name or just have someone goes around different polling places and vote under someone else's name to cancel their vote.

Historically it has been the source of serious criminal charges when it has occurred, even in error.

 

[couragewolf]

Does that include revolver belts?

This is the mechanical engineering discussion we SHOULD be having. A belt of revolver chambers. It's possible if you have the imagination and will.

 

[methinks]

But "shall not be infringed" does not mean: all the guns, all the possible configurations (triggers, calibers, barrel lengths, ...), all the time, all places, for all people. There are lots of restrictions on gun rights that have been held to be constitutional, such as the NFA, DD ban, sterile places, and so on. Try buying a nuclear device (which clearly is an arm) and using it at a shooting range. Try the same with a using an 155mm howitzer as a civilian. Or a ma deuce without NFA paperwork. Or a 2-gauge punt shotgun. Or try bringing your carry piece into the dining room of the White House as a visitor.

"Shall not be infringed" is concise, but not at all clear. And it does not answer the question of how far gun rights do reach.


Fascinating question, but wholly irrelevant to the topic at hand. Certain restrictions on gun rights (such as fees and taxes, example: NFA, and tests such as the FSC or CCW background checks, and the restrictions I described above) are considered constitutional, and have been vetted by the courts. Don't like it? Tough. Just because you wish it to be otherwise, and just because you can draw comparisons to other rights does not change that reality.


You didn't read my post carefully enough. If the state were to restrict ALL screws (and for the picky people, all other fasteners such as rivets), that would wipe out the 2A. But that doesn't mean that screws are arms. Now replace the word "screw" with "magazine" in that sentence, and you will find that magazines are also not arms.

The reason the state can not restrict all magazines is not that magazines are arms ... they are not. Nobody has ever been shot by a magazine. It is that magazines are required for the common models of guns (that being pistols and semi-auto rifles) to function. And the 2A guarantees (since Heller) that we must have access to functioning common models for self defense.

The underlying fallacy is that you (and many others) seem to think that the 2A protects ONLY arms. No, it actually protects the ability of normal people to defend themselves, and arms are one ingredient needed for that ability. Read Heller.


You should look at the the California state government (in the form of CARB) did to diesel trucks. It is exactly the scenario you described, which has caused all heavy trucks older than ~2012 to vanish from the streets of this state. Because diesel engines were "regulated/restricted", just as you describe. It happens. Don't like it? Sorry, people who like diesel engines and heavy trucks (which includes me, I own one that is no longer road legal) are in the minority.

Using the “nuclear weapon” argument is lazy at best, as it lacks a solid foundation. The term “dangerous and unusual” is key—items falling under that category can be banned. No reasonable person would attempt such an argument in good faith, and relying on it only undermines the discussion. This line of reasoning is recycled time and again by people who simply want to argue, rather than engage meaningfully.

 

[treelogger]

Forty or so years ago I was a fly on the wall in meetings with the fathers of CA gun control Dave Roberti and Mike Roos. They, and the supporters in the room, considered the CA Assault Weapon Ban “a start”. From what we’ve seen added to the books since then (precursor parts anyone?) they weren’t kidding.

Absolutely. There are people out there who would see a total ban on all weapons (obviously excluding police/military/...). Before Heller, that was a realistic possibility, because it was generally thought that Miller implied that the 2A only applies to the militia. Today, that's not an option any longer. Which doesn't mean that those people can push for it, they just won't get all the way.

A few years ago, prior to mail-in ballots, I went to my polling place, they found me on the rolls and stated I had already voted. They turned the book around, and someone had signed in my designated space. Their view was, “Oh well”. I had to provide ID to be allowed to vote. If that requirement was in place, the previous guy wouldn’t have been able to get through.

One thing I don't understand about this is that even with this in person validation process they recognized there was an error. An audit would recognize their errors if you voted in duplicate.

The same issue can arise if a person submits two mail-in (or personal delivery) ballots, or votes both by mail-in and at the polling station. This situation is not particularly rare. In this case, all votes are segregated out, and handled manually. An election worker goes over them, and decides which to count. There are pretty clear rules of what to do. In some cases that's super easy. For example, a person thinks that their mail ballot has been tampered with by another person (for example they gave it to a friend to bring to the post office), and goes into the registrar's office in person to request a new ballot, and fills it out. In that case, clearly the newer ballot (done in person at the registrar's office) takes precedence. Another example happens if a person is on voter rolls under two names (like Richard Doe and Doe), and by mistake submits both ballots: if they call the registrar's office to tell them, the registrar will take their instruction on which ballot to reject. In some cases this gets pretty complicated, and the registrar's office has to contact the voter (phone, e-mail, ...) to ask them which vote should be counted; fortunately, those cases are very rare (since they take a lot of effort to resolve).

Source: I've been a campaign chair, treasurer, and volunteer, and worked closely with several county's registrars.

It seems to me this is a pretty big non issue designed to stir up the emotional response of disbelieving vote outcomes and it really achieves next to nothing.

Absolutely agree. Elections are amazingly well run in California. The idea that mail-in ballots make them less reliable or easier to commit voting fraud is nonsense. The reality is that some large pressure groups who want to disenfranchise certain groups of voters, who traditionally vote the "wrong" way from their viewpoint. And those groups have a harder time voting at polling stations, so making it harder to vote reduces their turnout, which helps swings votes in the direction these pressure groups want.

And I really hate anything that disenfranchises legal voters.

The term “dangerous and unusual” is key—items falling under that category can be banned.

Who gets to decide what is dangerous, and what is unusual? Legislatures, and courts. Are magazines with capacity over 10 rounds dangerous? My opinion on that is irrelevant, but I think they are not. Are they unusual? I think in California they are, and in the rest of the US they are not, but again that doesn't matter, since I don't sit on the Supreme Court.

Clearly, in those decisions they need to follow some common sense. Anyone who claims that nuclear weapons are harmless and common will lose all their credibility; and conversely, anyone who claims the Ruger Single Six is dangerous or unusual is also non compos mentis. And ultimately the law and the legal system rely solely on the trust of the people. Justice Roberts seems to be the only one to have figured that out.

 

[couragewolf]

Absolutely. There are people out there who would see a total ban on all weapons (obviously excluding police/military/...). Before Heller, that was a realistic possibility, because it was generally thought that Miller implied that the 2A only applies to the militia. Today, that's not an option any longer. Which doesn't mean that those people can push for it, they just won't get all the way.




The same issue can arise if a person submits two mail-in (or personal delivery) ballots, or votes both by mail-in and at the polling station. This situation is not particularly rare. In this case, all votes are segregated out, and handled manually. An election worker goes over them, and decides which to count. There are pretty clear rules of what to do. In some cases that's super easy. For example, a person thinks that their mail ballot has been tampered with by another person (for example they gave it to a friend to bring to the post office), and goes into the registrar's office in person to request a new ballot, and fills it out. In that case, clearly the newer ballot (done in person at the registrar's office) takes precedence. Another example happens if a person is on voter rolls under two names (like Richard Doe and Doe), and by mistake submits both ballots: if they call the registrar's office to tell them, the registrar will take their instruction on which ballot to reject. In some cases this gets pretty complicated, and the registrar's office has to contact the voter (phone, e-mail, ...) to ask them which vote should be counted; fortunately, those cases are very rare (since they take a lot of effort to resolve).

Source: I've been a campaign chair, treasurer, and volunteer, and worked closely with several county's registrars.


Absolutely agree. Elections are amazingly well run in California. The idea that mail-in ballots make them less reliable or easier to commit voting fraud is nonsense. The reality is that some large pressure groups who want to disenfranchise certain groups of voters, who traditionally vote the "wrong" way from their viewpoint. And those groups have a harder time voting at polling stations, so making it harder to vote reduces their turnout, which helps swings votes in the direction these pressure groups want.

And I really hate anything that disenfranchises legal voters.


Who gets to decide what is dangerous, and what is unusual? Legislatures, and courts. Are magazines with capacity over 10 rounds dangerous? My opinion on that is irrelevant, but I think they are not. Are they unusual? I think in California they are, and in the rest of the US they are not, but again that doesn't matter, since I don't sit on the Supreme Court.

Clearly, in those decisions they need to follow some common sense. Anyone who claims that nuclear weapons are harmless and common will lose all their credibility; and conversely, anyone who claims the Ruger Single Six is dangerous or unusual is also non compos mentis. And ultimately the law and the legal system rely solely on the trust of the people. Justice Roberts seems to be the only one to have figured that out.

Seems pretty obvious

 

[GoldensRule]

Using the “nuclear weapon” argument is lazy at best, as it lacks a solid foundation. The term “dangerous and unusual” is key—items falling under that category can be banned. No reasonable person would attempt such an argument in good faith, and relying on it only undermines the discussion. This line of reasoning is recycled time and again by people who simply want to argue, rather than engage meaningfully.

The above straw man fallacy and or logic chopping adds nothing positive to a civil discussion. In no way was the Tree's point relying on that one insignificant and intentionally hyperbolic example as it was just that, an example and a reasonable one. He could have just as easily used, flame thrower, hand grenade, armed aircraft, etc. Only the gullible or intellectually lazy would be swayed by this approach to diminishing his logical statement.

 

[Skilly]

Who gets to decide what is dangerous, and what is unusual? Legislatures, and courts. Are magazines with capacity over 10 rounds dangerous? My opinion on that is irrelevant, but I think they are not. Are they unusual? I think in California they are, and in the rest of the US they are not, but again that doesn't matter, since I don't sit on the Supreme Court.

Clearly, in those decisions they need to follow some common sense. Anyone who claims that nuclear weapons are harmless and common will lose all their credibility; and conversely, anyone who claims the Ruger Single Six is dangerous or unusual is also non compos mentis. And ultimately the law and the legal system rely solely on the trust of the people. Justice Roberts seems to be the only one to have figured that out.

This is a really interesting point. Really a gun used in the wrong way is the danger. Not to go down the path of the 'guns don't kill people' but this is core to where over reach comes in to play. Reasonable laws and the 'trust of the people' are at odds.

Common sense, albeit a notable requirement for reasonable laws is as they say, not so common. Forget the hyperbolic examples of nuclear weapons or grenade launchers etc. The people making these laws lack a basic understanding of guns along with voters with the same, are manipulated into thinking they are some how safer with these laws being implemented. What is a "weapon of war"; does a standard capacity ban really make people safer? I mean if it doesn't why go to such measures to make them illegal?

I'll circle back to my earlier comment - they are restricting parts as a means to restrict guns. If these same law makers could reduce everything to a single shot, or ban mags altogether, they would.

 

[grandpapeepap]

Please understand, the ultimate goal of the gun control lobby is total disarmament. They aren’t interested in Heller, MacDonald or Bruen.

Forty or so years ago I was a fly on the wall in meetings with the fathers of CA gun control Dave Roberti and Mike Roos. They, and the supporters in the room, considered the CA Assault Weapon Ban “a start”. From what we’ve seen added to the books since then (precursor parts anyone?) they weren’t kidding.

In the early 90’s Sen Moynihan of New York was pushing for federal legislation to impose a 10,000% tax on hollow-tipped bullets to make them prohibitively expensive, (hunting or sport shooting ammunition excepted) and to ban specific calibers, such as .25, .32, and 9mm, because they were disproportionately used in crimes. The intent was to “starve” guns to death.

In 2016, CA began regulating ammo, and in 2024 began taxing it at an additional 11%. Their dream continues.

A few years ago, prior to mail-in ballots, I went to my polling place, they found me on the rolls and stated I had already voted. They turned the book around, and someone had signed in my designated space. Their view was, “Oh well”. I had to provide ID to be allowed to vote. If that requirement was in place, the previous guy wouldn’t have been able to get through.

Personally, I think this is a very good idea. I’m against someone other than me taking my money out of my bank.

I know when I did my mail in ballot I got a letter in the mail due to my signature not looking like the one on my DLs and I had to confirm it was my ballot. We can look at the heritage foundations research that 68 cases were found in 40 years of looking of "illegals voting". Seems like a non issue to get people emotional about something.

 

[GoldensRule]

I'll circle back to my earlier comment - they are restricting parts as a means to restrict guns. If these same law makers could reduce everything to a single shot, or ban mags altogether, they would.

In the case of magazines, the "intent" is to restrict the efficiency of firearms as it pertains to lethality. If one looks at the efficiency of firearms when the bill of rights was adopted and compare that to the efficiency of today's firearms, there are virtually no similarities. If one wishes to be an originalist with regard to the second amendment, one has to face the fact that today's weapons bear virtually no resemblance to the firearms of 1791 with the exception of a projectile being expelled from a barrel as a result of the detonation of an energetic material.

A semiautomatic weapon with a 10 round magazine is at least 1000x more efficient than a single shot, muzzle loading weapon. Even a single shot, bolt action weapon is exponentially more efficient than the weapons of 1791.

Firing 10 rounds from a muzzleloader long gun can take anywhere from 3 - 20 minutes depending upon numerous factors. In today's AR-15, the low end rate of fire is 700 rpm or ~12 rounds per second. With the muzzleloader, let's take the median of 10 rounds / 11.5 minutes which is roughly 1 round every ~70 seconds.
Then, let's be generous and say it takes 5 seconds to swap magazines in an AR-15 (the number is closer to 1 - 2 seconds), that means you can still fire 20 rounds in ~7 seconds compare that to a muzzleloader rate of fire of 20 rounds in 1400 seconds.

Anyone can plainly see that the 1791 amendment didn't remotely envision today's technology. I haven't even begun to explore the aspect of increased efficiency associated with insanely improved range and accuracy.

The people who are advocating these modern laws aren't trying to take away people's right to self defense. IMO, they are trying to reduce the extent of the carnage which can be inflicted by modern weapons (in a given period of time) while still ensuring people can defend themselves. To the best of my knowledge, no one is attempting to restrict the number of magazines or rounds we can carry on our person.

We gun owners and advocates need to stop playing the victim card and start looking at the innocent people who have become the victims of modern firearms technology and become part of a solution instead of just trying to thwart every attempt to mitigate the carnage.

 

[treelogger]

We can look at the heritage foundations research that 68 cases were found in 40 years of looking of "illegals voting".

I've been campaign manager several times, and have carefully looked at elections (checking every voter in the list, it's a relatively small district). Rough estimate, I've looked at the data about 10,000 ballots that were cast, and the elections were all mail-in ballots. In that, I think I found 5 cases of election fraud:

• One case of a person voting twice (first name written different), they contacted the registrar and had one ballot invalidated.
• At least two cases of people's ballots being destroyed. One after filling it out, her husband knew she was going to wrote wrong and probably threw it into the trash. We fixed it by asking the voter to go in person to the registrar's office and vote there. Another by her landlord intentionally destroying her mail, so she didn't get any ballot. We fixed that by asking her to change her registration so the ballots are mailed to another address.
• One case of a person who doesn't live in our district registering in the district, by using the address of "a friend" in district and claiming to reside there. We knew it was false, because (a) her kid lived at her real address and attended school there, and (b) the friend told us explicitly she doesn't live there, only receives mail there. This one we had to let slide, because it would require going to court to invalidate her registration (meaning it would cost our campaign tens of thousands), and it would mean she would get disenfranchised, which I hate.
• One case of a person who also doesn't live in our district registering in it, on a tiny undevelopable property he owns within the district, on which camping is prohibited (and after complaints, the camping ban is enforced). The were the chair of the opposite campaign, but didn't live in our district. We complained about their registration to the FPPC (the California agency that investigates voter fraud), and once they contacted him and threatened him with a large fine (he was also doing a lot of other illegal stuff), he "voluntarily" changed his voter registration back to his house.

There might have been a few more cases where we suspected ballots being "lost" (intentionally suppressed) or people registering at the wrong address (perhaps unintentionally, if they moved within the district). So in total, about 5 cases of attempted voter fraud (perhaps unintentional) out of about 10,000 votes, or less than half of a tenth of a percent. And all but one was corrected and counted correctly in the election, leaving ultimate a hundredths of a percent.

Summary: Mail in ballots causing election fraud is a fairy tale, told to stupid people to scare them.

 

[Jimi Jah]

I've been campaign manager several times, and have carefully looked at elections (checking every voter in the list, it's a relatively small district). Rough estimate, I've looked at the data about 10,000 ballots that were cast, and the elections were all mail-in ballots. In that, I think I found 5 cases of election fraud:

• One case of a person voting twice (first name written different), they contacted the registrar and had one ballot invalidated.
• At least two cases of people's ballots being destroyed. One after filling it out, her husband knew she was going to wrote wrong and probably threw it into the trash. We fixed it by asking the voter to go in person to the registrar's office and vote there. Another by her landlord intentionally destroying her mail, so she didn't get any ballot. We fixed that by asking her to change her registration so the ballots are mailed to another address.
• One case of a person who doesn't live in our district registering in the district, by using the address of "a friend" in district and claiming to reside there. We knew it was false, because (a) her kid lived at her real address and attended school there, and (b) the friend told us explicitly she doesn't live there, only receives mail there. This one we had to let slide, because it would require going to court to invalidate her registration (meaning it would cost our campaign tens of thousands), and it would mean she would get disenfranchised, which I hate.
• One case of a person who also doesn't live in our district registering in it, on a tiny undevelopable property he owns within the district, on which camping is prohibited (and after complaints, the camping ban is enforced). The were the chair of the opposite campaign, but didn't live in our district. We complained about their registration to the FPPC (the California agency that investigates voter fraud), and once they contacted him and threatened him with a large fine (he was also doing a lot of other illegal stuff), he "voluntarily" changed his voter registration back to his house.

There might have been a few more cases where we suspected ballots being "lost" (intentionally suppressed) or people registering at the wrong address (perhaps unintentionally, if they moved within the district). So in total, about 5 cases of attempted voter fraud (perhaps unintentional) out of about 10,000 votes, or less than half of a tenth of a percent. And all but one was corrected and counted correctly in the election, leaving ultimate a hundredths of a percent.

Summary: Mail in ballots causing election fraud is a fairy tale, told to stupid people to scare them.

Maybe so but solid evidence isn't easy to get here. So many mailed out ballots end up not getting in voter's hands. Mail in ballots were tried in many other countries including France. They stopped doing that because of fraud.

I recall the Orange County house election back in the 1980's when Loretta Sanchez "won" the seat from long time republican Bob "B1" Dornan. There were about 900 illegal alien votes cast. The lawsuit was dismissed because the judge determined it wasn't enough to change the outcome.

Other countries require voter ID as well. Mexico issues a fraud resistant voter ID card to prevent voter fraud.

Here, it's on the honor system. Unfortunately some are more honorable than others.