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
caguns.net

Welcome to CAguns.net!
Join our growing community where you can ask questions, share knowledge, or browse our classifieds section.

Sign up for a free account today and unlock full access! Once registered, you can search, post, and take advantage of exclusive features unavailable to guests.

A note on why more of the site now requires an account: automated scrapers and AI systems have been crawling our forums and classifieds at a scale. Requiring sign-in for those sections is the most effective tool we have. It takes a minute to register, it's free, and it keeps what happens here between actual members.

New to California gun ownership or trying to keep up with the changing laws? Check out our sister site CA2A.com — free courses, plain-English legal updates, and step-by-step guides built for California owners.

Advanced features are available only to registered members. Register today!

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

Dvrjon said:
A bit more thread drift….

Sacramento leadership likes “mass shooting” because those are one-offs done by not really stable people. The idea that gangs have running gun battles on crowded streets implies the cops have lost, therefore, leadership has failed. Leaders don’t want that.
Click to expand...
I don't know though, "mass shooting" to me sounds a lot worse than "gang shooting" because it immediately says to me that innocent bystanders were shot in a public place vs. rival gangs shot each other. I don't really care if gangs are shooting each other if no one else is involved. Live by the sword, die by the sword and all that.
 
Dvrjon said:
Frankly, up until Freedom Week, LCMs were unusual in California. Of course, that’s because they’d been banned for 2 decades.
Click to expand...
The "usual" test can't be limited to a state, clearly prohibiting the artefact. It's gotta be nationwide, since we are talking the U.S. Constitution scope, not Sacramento Municipal Code.
 
Dvrjon said:
A bit more thread drift….

Sacramento leadership likes “mass shooting” because those are one-offs done by not really stable people. The idea that gangs have running gun battles on crowded streets implies the cops have lost, therefore, leadership has failed. Leaders don’t want that.
Click to expand...

That doesn't happen in the free states. What makes the hypocrite leadership believe California is a third-world country?
 
SomeOne said:
The 9CA and the State were extremely serious about it. Funny enough, your joke wasn't a joke for them.
Click to expand...
Jeeeze. I didn’t say “joke”, I said “humor”.

Regardless of whether the State and 9 CA were serious about the tautology, it still exists and remains absurd and humorous regardless of how serious its supporters may have been. (But thanks for protecting the feelings of those entities.)

I’ll type slow so you can keep up.
-The state bans LCMs so people cannot legally increase the use of these products. They cannot buy any more in state, nor can they bring them into the state.
-The ban goes on for 2 decades, forcing gun owners over that time to shift to the use of 10-round magazines.
-The state then contends that LCMs are not in common use because all gun owners over the past two decades have bought 10 round mags and not LCMs.

That’s not a joke, but it is humorous, or even absurd.

Judge Benitez in 2017, re: Duncan Preliminary Injunction:

IMG_0875.jpeg
 
Dvrjon said:
////////

From Justice Scalia in Heller:

And the state has already perverted that to be “unusually dangerous” (and some have continued the perversion to be “especially dangerous”). Under this rubric, a magazine in and of itself, is not unusually dangerous, but a +10-round mag is unusually dangerous. Again displaying the idea of extrapolating and twisting black letter rulings to suit an “underlying” concept. Duncan, when reviewed, should put an end to that nonsense and affirm that what the Court said is what the Court said, and not what the State wants in place to return to “means-ends” and “interest balancing” of societal risks.(See Bruen; One Step Too Many.)
Click to expand...
Somehow actually dangerous, literally dangerous, truly dangerous all got skipped?
 
Last edited:
Deleted member 16735 said:
I don't know though, "mass shooting" to me sounds a lot worse than "gang shooting" because it immediately says to me that innocent bystanders were shot in a public place vs. rival gangs shot each other. I don't really care if gangs are shooting each other if no one else is involved. Live by the sword, die by the sword and all that.
Click to expand...
It’s not about what you care about. It’s about what the politicians and the LEOs charged with keeping the streets safe care about. ‘Mass shooting” reads as ‘isolated one-off mad-man’.

Gang shooting reads as ‘organized criminals and outlaws firing indiscriminately on public streets crowded with night-clubbing voters’. (And for Godʻs sake, donʻt identify the shooterʻs race because that crimps the diversity thread).

For the Pol’s who are telling everybody everything is all right, and the world is full of prancing Unicorns and rainbows, acknowledging uncontrolled running gun battles which kill innocent bystanders is political suicide.

(ikeo1...the Unicorn ref was for you :giggle: ).
 
Last edited:
Dvrjon said:
It’s not about what you care about. It’s about what the politicians and the LEOs charged with keeping the streets safe care about. ‘Mass shooting” reads as ‘isolated one-off mad-man’.

Gang shooting reads as ‘organized criminals and outlaws firing indiscriminately on public streets crowded with night-clubbing voters’. (And for Godʻs sake, donʻt identify the shooterʻs race because that crimps the diversity thread).

For the Pol’s who are telling everybody everything is all right, and the world is full of prancing Unicorns and rainbows, acknowledging uncontrolled running gun battles which kill innocent bystanders is political suicide.

(ikeo1...the Unicorn ref was for you :giggle: ).
Click to expand...
I mean maybe, but the reality is that these guys weren't really organized crime so much as career criminals. Gangs are barely a thing compared to 30 years ago, I will say this: I've lived in urban areas most my life and rarely here are people objectively concerned about gangs. When I moved to Siskiyou County a while back for a job all I heard about was gangs and how it's too dangerous to go to "Southern California" (meaning anything south of Redding LOL) because of the gangs. Meanwhile my meth head neighbors kid there killed his whole family, grandparents and all. Media goes both ways to make people in the suburbs and the rural areas think that the problems are worse than they are. The reality is somewhere in the middle of course. But we are objectively safer now than and time in the past 50 years, especially in the big cities.
 
Dvrjon said:
Please read again….”organized criminals and outlaws”.

“Organized crime” has a completely different connotation.
Click to expand...
Honestly seems pretty disorganized to me ;)
 
If it's relisted again, the petition is effectively denied based on typical procedure. It's already very unlikely to be heard at this point. States that are combative towards the 2A are going to have a field day as scotus moves further and further away from the spirit of Bruen by ignoring (or being ambivalent) to how far lower courts have mangled the two-step instructions.
 
Ro-bo said:
If it's relisted again, the petition is effectively denied based on typical procedure. It's already very unlikely to be heard at this point. States that are combative towards the 2A are going to have a field day as scotus moves further and further away from the spirit of Bruen by ignoring (or being ambivalent) to how far lower courts have mangled the two-step instructions.
Click to expand...
Oh ye of little faith. Have you not heard of Hammv. Smith?
1765663097535.webp
Certainly an outrider, but it appears they can do pretty much what they want to do. After all, they are Supreme.
(It was granted and remanded without void).
Back to present day...They usually try to fill their cert allocations by end of January.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom