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

[Ro-bo]

However, since Bruen, they need to show that these types of restrictions are in the "historical tradition of firearm regulation". That, they cannot do.

They only need to apply Bruen if the question clears the first hurdle, which is whether or not the subject is protected under the 2A altogether. The states's claim that magazines aren't arms isn't just a twist of logic for the hell of it. It's a very deliberate attempt to avoid putting, in this case, magazine regulations to the more stringent test which Bruen dictates.

But if people read the the state's positions in the briefs, they'll see that they have part two covered as well. In other words, they aren't just banking on the idea that scotus will accept that magazines fall outside the scope of the 2A. They intend to answer Bruen methodology by pointing out "historical" precedent by way of examples that aren't directly related to magazines, or even guns, at all. In other cases, courts have accepted things like 19th century laws that restricted the sale of Bowie knives, to satisfy historical tradition of regulating arms in a broader sense.

Roberts gave the opposing side ample maneuvering room in Rahimi:

"Nevertheless, some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases. These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber. As we explained in Heller, for example, the reach of the Second Amendment is not limited only to those arms that were in existence at the founding.
Rather, it “extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not [yet] in existence.” By that same logic, the Second Amendment permits more than just those regulations identical to ones that could be found in 1791. Holding otherwise would be as mistaken as applying the protections of the right only to muskets and sabers."

 

[couragewolf]

They only need to apply Bruen if the question clears the first hurdle, which is whether or not the subject is protected under the 2A altogether. The states's claim that magazines aren't arms isn't just a twist of logic for the hell of it. It's a very deliberate attempt to avoid putting, in this case, magazine regulations to the more stringent test which Bruen dictates.

But if people read the the state's positions in the briefs, they'll see that they have part two covered as well. In other words, they aren't just banking on the idea that scotus will accept that magazines fall outside the scope of the 2A. They intend to answer Bruen methodology by pointing out "historical" precedent by way of examples that aren't directly related to magazines, or even guns, at all. In other cases, courts have accepted things like 19th century laws that restricted the sale of Bowie knives, to satisfy historical tradition of regulating arms in a broader sense.

Roberts gave the opposing side ample maneuvering room in Rahimi:

"Nevertheless, some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases. These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber. As we explained in Heller, for example, the reach of the Second Amendment is not limited only to those arms that were in existence at the founding.
Rather, it “extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not [yet] in existence.” By that same logic, the Second Amendment permits more than just those regulations identical to ones that could be found in 1791. Holding otherwise would be as mistaken as applying the protections of the right only to muskets and sabers."

So permanently affixed 100 rd magazines should be the next lawsuit FPC files

 

[Dvrjon]

The Court scheduled Duncan for conference today, 5 Dec 2025. Current as of 1815, PST, 5 Dec 2025.

Today at the Court - Friday, Dec 5, 2025​

---

• The Supreme Court Building is open to the public from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
• The Justices will meet in a private conference to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review.
• The Court will release an order list at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, December 8.

 

[shroom]

Here's hoping. At the very least they have to hear the takings clause part of it right? Or will the state be allowed to turn hundreds of thousands of >10 round magazine owners into criminals?

 

[Ro-bo]

Here's hoping. At the very least they have to hear the takings clause part of it right? Or will the state be allowed to turn hundreds of thousands of >10 round magazine owners into criminals?

This is the state's general position on that aspect of the case (from their reply brief):

"Among other reforms, Proposition 63 made it unlawful to possess large-capacity magazines. The law offers several options to individuals who possess large-capacity magazines after June 2017 to come into compliance. They may permanently modify the magazines to hold fewer rounds, a relatively simple process that requires no specialized tools or skills. Individuals may also turn prohibited magazines over to law enforcement officials or transfer them out of the State—for instance, by selling the magazines to individuals residing in other States."

FWIW, they justify option two by citing a preponderance of YT videos of how to do so.

The fact that there wasn't an answer to the petition on Firday likely doesn't bode well. This is the pattern we've seen in other cases. On that note, the state also cites the denial of cert in other district court's versions of Duncan as an indicator that scotus accepts their interpretation and application of Bruen. That means if they deny hearing Duncan this final time, they will play directly into the narrative that CADOJ is pushing which is that magazine capacity falls outside the scope of the 2A altogether, thus it doesn't even clear the first step.

From the same link above:

The principal question presented by petitioners is whether California’s restrictions on large-capacity magazines violate the Second Amendment. But the Court recently denied three petitions raising materially indistinguishable questions concerning large-capacity magazine laws. Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, 145 S. Ct. 2771 (2025) (No. 24-131); Hanson v. District of Columbia, 145 S. Ct. 2778 (2025) (No. 24-936); Harrel v. Raoul, 144 S. Ct. 2491 (2024) (No. 23-877). Petitioners provide no sensible reason to depart from that course and grant review here.

There's a lot riding on this for the entire country.

 

[Deleted member 31158]

This is the state's general position on that aspect of the case (from their reply brief):

"Among other reforms, Proposition 63 made it unlawful to possess large-capacity magazines. The law offers several options to individuals who possess large-capacity magazines after June 2017 to come into compliance. They may permanently modify the magazines to hold fewer rounds, a relatively simple process that requires no specialized tools or skills. Individuals may also turn prohibited magazines over to law enforcement officials or transfer them out of the State—for instance, by selling the magazines to individuals residing in other States."

FWIW, they justify option two by citing a preponderance of YT videos of how to do so.

The fact that there wasn't an answer to the petition on Firday likely doesn't bode well. This is the pattern we've seen in other cases. On that note, the state also cites the denial of cert in other district court's versions of Duncan as an indicator that scotus accepts their interpretation and application of Bruen. That means if they deny hearing Duncan this final time, they will play directly into the narrative that CADOJ is pushing which is that magazine capacity falls outside the scope of the 2A altogether, thus it doesn't even clear the first step.

From the same link above:

The principal question presented by petitioners is whether California’s restrictions on large-capacity magazines violate the Second Amendment. But the Court recently denied three petitions raising materially indistinguishable questions concerning large-capacity magazine laws. Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, 145 S. Ct. 2771 (2025) (No. 24-131); Hanson v. District of Columbia, 145 S. Ct. 2778 (2025) (No. 24-936); Harrel v. Raoul, 144 S. Ct. 2491 (2024) (No. 23-877). Petitioners provide no sensible reason to depart from that course and grant review here.

There's a lot riding on this for the entire country.

SCOTUS doesn’t care. They’re already pissy that Trump is actually making them work more in the past year than they have in the last 15 years combined, so why would they do extra work when they can just say “we don’t want to hear it, we don’t care what happens.”

 

[Wolfee10]

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but for the sake of sleeping well at night and not completely spinning out, it's good to try to keep perspective...



Just because you THINK they are your civil rights, doesn't mean they are.

Just because you want legislation, or even the constitution, to be interpreted a certain way, doesn't mean everyone else does.

"The government" is not some big faceless corporation in which none of us have a say. At least it's not supposed to be...though I guess a lot of people think it should be run like a for profit business now (yikes).

Some group of US sent everyone one of these politicians to Sacramento, Washington DC, etc. Whether directly by voting for them, or indirectly by not doing enough to organize for the other guy.

So long as we have fair and free elections in this country, "The government" is elected by your fellow countrymen.

If the decision comes down and the legislation you don't like remains the law of the land, the simple truth remains: that not enough of your fellow countrymen agree with you for change to happen right now. Or...maybe...people agree with you, but they care MORE about a lot of other things and vote accordingly, and then don't care enough to dedicate themselves to organizing.

Either way, you get to the same place: Maybe it's what YOU want. Maybe it's what everyone you know wants. But you clearly don't know enough people because...by the votes...it's not what MOST want.

If the overreaching government tyranny being suggested here was actually the case (ie the majority of California voters want looser restrictions, yet the government is tightening) it would be very puzzling that California voters just voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to gerrymander the state to the max for democrats.

The reason the Bill of rights exists is to protect against this very thing. Public sentiment is as fickle today as it was during the founding. If we did not have the bill of rights many of our constitutionally protected rights would be gone or restricted in the name of “peace” and “security”

 

[Ro-bo]

So permanently affixed 100 rd magazines should be the next lawsuit FPC files

FPC is pretty proud of their litigation, and talks a big talk like the other organizations, but a fair portion of those cases go nowhere. Not trying to beat up them/Brandon, but being effective means successfully litigating the claims, not just filing a barrage of suits to drum up donations.

Second amendment advocacy has fallen into this death spiral where the only options anyone see anymore is to put all these questions in front of the courts. That strategy isn't completely devoid of value but throwing up as much as possible to see what sticks means most of it won't. Duncan is overripe for scotus review. It's done the grand tour. Waiting for the be-all, end-all case that clarifies everything left hanging since Heller (for that matter, Miller 1939) just means more waiting and hoping. This a long term investment that historically hasn't paid off. It's well past time to broaden 2A activism beyond the courtroom.

 

[Ro-bo]

SCOTUS doesn’t care. They’re already pissy that Trump is actually making them work more in the past year than they have in the last 15 years combined, so why would they do extra work when they can just say “we don’t want to hear it, we don’t care what happens.”

It seems to me it's more that they *do* care, and don't want to touch this radioactive issue with a proverbial ten foot pole. With all the similar magazine cases being denied prior, it seems they are satisfied that the lower courts are getting it right with respect to Bruen. I'm a broken record, but the litmus test was Rahimi and their clarification greenlit the states actions that have let magazine restrictions remain in place, among other controversies.

 

[Dvrjon]

The fact that there wasn't an answer to the petition on Firday likely doesn't bode well.

The SCOTUS doesn't immediately publish results of conferences on the day of the conference. As I noted above, the Orders from the conference on Friday will be published at 6:30 a.m. on Monday, Dec 8.

This is the pattern we've seen in other cases. On that note, the state also cites the denial of cert in other district court's versions of Duncan as an indicator that scotus accepts their interpretation and application of Bruen. That means if they deny hearing Duncan this final time, they will play directly into the narrative that CADOJ is pushing which is that magazine capacity falls outside the scope of the 2A altogether, thus it doesn't even clear the first step.

Other courtʻs cases similar to Duncan are not as developed. The issue isn’t about capacity of mags. The issue is about whether mags are arms or accessories. If they are arms, then they are protected and the state has to prove their historical control. If they are accessories, they are not arms and can be controlled and banned regardless of their capacity. This also opens the door to all other accessories being controlled.

But the Court recently denied three petitions raising materially indistinguishable questions concerning large-capacity magazine laws. Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, 145 S. Ct. 2771 (2025) (No. 24-131); Hanson v. District of Columbia, 145 S. Ct. 2778 (2025) (No. 24-936); Harrel v. Raoul, 144 S. Ct. 2491 (2024) (No. 23-877). Petitioners provide no sensible reason to depart from that course and grant review here.

Each of those cases deals with a Preliminary Injunction. There has been no decision on the merits of the cases at any level. Approval/Denial of Preliminary Injunctions hinges on what are known as the Winter Rules developed from a SCOTUS case. PIs are evaluated on: likely success, irreparable harm, favorable balance of equities, and public interest. As we know, the merits of a case under Bruen cannot hinge on balance of equities and public interest. So, the standards of review for Cert for these undeveloped cases is different, and the merits of the cases under the Bruen standard have not been explored.

Duncan has been decided in our favor at the District level twice and at the 9 CA panel twice, and denied by 9 CA En Banc twice. The first trip was under pre-Bruen standards and the last was under Post-Bruen standards. The record is fully-developed and has been put in place after 9 years of litigation. There is a full exploration of Bruen guidance and application and the case is under final decision by the appelate court.

All of that illustrates why the other cases failed and Duncan should go forward.

 

[Dvrjon]

FPC is pretty proud of their litigation, and talks a big talk like the other organizations, but a fair portion of those cases go nowhere.

This isnʻt an FPC case. Itʻs a CRPA case, as noted in the pleadings:

Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio, Christopher Waddell, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., are petitioners here and were plaintiffs-appellees.

 

[oneaudiopro]

There was no answer to the petition on Friday because SCOTUS doesn't publish conference results until 6:30 a.m. on the following

The SCOTUS doesn't immediately publish results of conferences on the day of the conference. As I noted above, the Orders from the conference on Friday will be published at 6:30 a.m. on Monday, Dec 8.

Other courtʻs cases similar to Duncan are not as developed.

Each of those cases deals with a Preliminary Injunction. There has been no decision on the merits of the cases at any level. Approval/Denial of Preliminnary Injunctions hinges on what are known as the Winter Rules developed from a SCOTUS case. PIs are evaluated on: likely success, irreparable harm, favorable balance of equities, and public interest. As we know, the merits of a case under Bruen cannot hinge on balance of equities and public interest. So, the standards of review for Cert for these undeveloped cases is different, and the merits of the cases under the Bruen standard have not been explored.

Duncan has been decided in our favor at the District level twice and at the 9 CA panel twice, and denied by 9 CA En Banc twice. The first trip was under pre-Bruen standards and the last was under Post-Bruen standards. The record is fully-developed and has been put in place after 9 years of litigation. There is a full exploration of Bruen guidance and application and the case is under final decision by the appelate court.

All of that illustrates why the other cases failed and Duncan should go forward.

Is it outside courtroom decorum to have our attorneys remind the 9th circuit judges of the Bruen decisions re: history and tradition? Sounds like that would probably save a lot of time and $$$$.

 

[Dvrjon]

Is it outside courtroom decorum to have our attorneys remind the 9th circuit judges of the Bruen decisions re: history and tradition? Sounds like that would probably save a lot of time and $$$$.

First, the 9 CA has already ruled against us twice. They were fully informed of Bruen application to this case.

Second, Guess what’s in the Request for Certification to the SCOTUS, the responses and the Amici briefs.

The issues here:

1. Are magazines arms and therefore protected under the 2A, or are they accessories which can be controlled/banned?

2. Do the Bruen concepts of history and tradition apply, or are magazines protected under the 2A?

2. If they aren’t protected, do the BS historical analogs from the state bring them under control?

If the State wins on the accessories issue we are completely F-ed.

 

[skb720]

So even if Dungan is ruled in our favor, the state still require say 30 rounds mags to ship to FFL's, so the State is still winning. We cannot win against these people.

 

[cali_jazz]

So even if Dungan is ruled in our favor, the state still require say 30 rounds mags to ship to FFL's, so the State is still winning. We cannot win against these people.

I believe sellers can still ship direct to you if they follow the rules set forth in AB1263.

 

[Ro-bo]

All of that illustrates why the other cases failed and Duncan should go forward.

To be clear, I wasn't advocating the state's position. I was merely pointing out what they've said in their response. The state has addressed *both* aspects (Bruen steps), so as I already mentioned, they aren't just banking on scotus agreeing that magazines fall outside the scope of the 2A by way of being accessories. Their argument on that point is weak. However with respect to "text, history and tradition", there's significant precedent now, post Rahimi, where courts have accepted very general historical analogues to justify terrible gun laws.

Of course this case should go forward. In all honesty, it should be settled already. But there is a risk that even the most favorable outcome if scotus takes it, might leave a lot of wiggle room for hostile parties to legislate right around the decision.

 

[Ro-bo]

This isnʻt an FPC case. Itʻs a CRPA case, as noted in the pleadings:

Didn't say otherwise. I was responding to another poster who brought up FPC. Regardless, if you look at the litany of suits they've filed, what I said is on the mark.

 

[Warpspeed]

We just need 4 to agree to grant a writ of certiorari - Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Roberts are the 6 potentials. I doubt Jackson, Kagan or Sotomayor would be interested in hearing the case.

 

[Ro-bo]

Thomas is the only sure thing. It's clear after Rahimi and the fallout in the lower courts re: the {mis}application of Bruen, that the rest of the so-called "conservative" justices believe the 2A is subject to a fair amount of limitation as individual states see fit. I want to be wrong, but I have little faith that just getting it to scotus is the only obstacle.

 

[Dvrjon]

Didn't say otherwise. I was responding to another poster who brought up FPC. Regardless, if you look at the litany of suits they've filed, what I said is on the mark.

And I was clarifying that THIS lawsuit isn’t one of FPC’s dubious productions.