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

[Dvrjon]

Duncan was just relisted for conference on 6 Mar.

This is #8.

 

[shroom]

If we don't end up getting Snope'd I will be incredibly surprised.

 

[NorCalBusa]

Thread needs to be re-titled to "When SCOTUS didn't go to conference". Start a new one when they do go.

 

[IrregularDefense]

Hate to be a pessimist, but I see this going the way of Snope. And what a stir it will cause in CA.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

We have to keep in mind that only 30% of people own guns in the nation and only a fraction of those are enthusiasts and a smaller fraction of those are living in restrictive states so it's very few people that actually care about these cases as much as we do. If it was a national AW ban on the table it would likely be higher priority. Of course they are hearing the marijuana case which effects even less people....

 

[psun786]

We have to keep in mind that only 30% of people own guns in the nation and only a fraction of those are enthusiasts and a smaller fraction of those are living in restrictive states so it's very few people that actually care about these cases as much as we do. If it was a national AW ban on the table it would likely be higher priority. Of course they are hearing the marijuana case which effects even less people....

About 28.3% of adults in California live in a household with a gun, according to recent surveys. The issue is that many gun owners are not single-issue voters or particularly vocal, unlike some pro-life or pro-choice advocates, climate activists, or religious groups. As a result, gun rights may not receive as much focused political attention as certain other issues.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

About 28.3% of adults in California live in a household with a gun, according to recent surveys. The issue is that many gun owners are not single-issue voters or particularly vocal, unlike some pro-life or pro-choice advocates, climate activists, or religious groups. As a result, gun rights may not receive as much focused political attention as certain other issues.

And that household number translates to significantly lower amounts of individuals that own and use firearms. It's a pretty hard sell to people who think guns are scary and dangerous to say we want laws that supposedly are about safety repealed. Like why would they be motivated to vote for that? These SC decisions are likely the only way we will get real magazines and pistol grips, but again it's very few people that actually care even outside of California

 

[Dvrjon]

Thread needs to be re-titled to "When SCOTUS didn't go to conference". Start a new one when they do go.

Nah….The title holds. I’m tracking every time Duncan goes to conference. SCOTUS is always there. The problem is that Duncan never comes out of conference.

 

[7.62mm_fmj]

They’ve had months to write dissents and they’ve had practice in previous cases of 2A denials. Paperwork isn’t the problem, here.

Is there any other instance where SCOTUS GVR'ed a case where the appeals court spuriously sent it all the way down to the district court to start over, and then the case came back up for another appeals court ruling (that bypassed normal procedures), only for it to be contrary to SCOTUS's clear instructions?

 

[Dvrjon]

Is there any other instance where SCOTUS GVR'ed a case where the appeals court spuriously sent it all the way down to the district court to start over, and then the case came back up for another appeals court ruling (that bypassed normal procedures), only for it to be contrary to SCOTUS's clear instructions?

It appears that your question is founded on the concept that the issues raised in Duncan (this time) are contrary to previous SCOTUS clear instructions. I would suggest that, if those instructions were, indeed, clear (and perhaps “trapped in amber”) we wouldn’t be arguing issues like the relevance of post Revolution Black Laws, communal black powder storage brick and mortar buildings (called “magazines”) = portable firearm magazines, what is an arm, and whether “dangerous and unusual” means “unusually dangerous”.

In Duncan, these things are clear in the minds of all parties. However, each thinks the other to be wrong.

A specious definition of “clarity” if ever there was one.

To add: The process of GVR on a case easily allows the appellate court to remand to the district of original review. And having done that, the case followed the normal track (previously followed) with a win (again) at district and (again) at appellate panel, with (again) a denial at en banc. It’s pretty much a straight road and the case followed it. One need not enjoy the process to understand it. At least its process is clear.

Best.

 

[treelogger]

(Disclaimer: Found this on Reddit)

There is actually interesting news on Duncan today. The DC Court of Appeals (which is, in spite of its name, not a federal appeals court, but the Supreme Court for the "state" of DC, and yes I know DC is not a state, but it has a superior/appeals/supreme courts system like most states do) rules on the Benson case today, and found that a limitation to 10 rounds is NOT constitutional. TBH, I had never heard of this case before, until it showed up on Reddit today.

This sort of creates a circuit split. It's not a real circuit split, because Duncan is in the 9th circuit, while Benson is in a state court, not a federal circuit. But if the District of Columbia appeals their loss to the Supreme Court (which they can, but don't have to), then SCOTUS has a pair of cases they can handle together to resolve.

Now, my previous argument that the Supreme Court is way too busy, and needs to reserve some spare time for hot potato issues arising from current politics, still holds. I can see them ignoring less urgent issues for a few years. I can also see them wanting to play with a minor case that is unimportant to about 90% of the US population, instead of dealing with stuff like ICE and the Iran war, which can only get them in trouble with roughly half the voters. Remember, Roberts is worried about the court losing the trust of the public; rightly so, both liberals and conservatives are unhappy.

 

[Dvrjon]

(Disclaimer: Found this on Reddit)

There is actually interesting news on Duncan today. The DC Court of Appeals (which is, in spite of its name, not a federal appeals court, but the Supreme Court for the "state" of DC, and yes I know DC is not a state, but it has a superior/appeals/supreme courts system like most states do) rules on the Benson case today, and found that a limitation to 10 rounds is NOT constitutional. TBH, I had never heard of this case before, until it showed up on Reddit today.
.

Here’s the Decision on Benson. They even cite Bumatay and Vandyke separate dissents in Duncan to illustrate why magazines are “arms”.

This is a Panel decision, so it could be reheard en banc and/or submitted for certiorari. But, the U.S. Government initially prosecuted the case and defended against the initial appeal, and now concedes the magazine limitation is unconstitutional. If further appeal is granted or certiorari submitted, the influence of the U.S. Government might push it to the forefront.

 

[lopez1171]

So can we start buying now??

 

[treelogger]

This is a Panel decision, so it could be reheard en banc and/or submitted for certiorari.

I have no idea what the procedures in that court are, whether en banc appeals are common or highly unusual. They do exist on paper.

But, the U.S. Government initially prosecuted the case and defended against the initial appeal, and now concedes the magazine limitation is unconstitutional.

Is the controlling party here the (conservative/republican) US government, or the (progressive/democrat) AG of the District of Columbia? The legal situation of DC makes all these questions interestingly complex. I also have no idea what is going on in the heads of these people, and what they are planning.

So can we start buying now??

I really hope that question is meant as sarcasm. No, you can not. You are in the state of California, and a variety of courts have said that the sate's 10-round limit for buying (or receiving or exchanging) magazines remains in force. Whether merely possessing such a magazine is in and of itself a criminal offense is right now unresolved, until the US Supreme Court decides whether to take the Duncan case, and rule on it.

 

[adrkwan]

I have no idea what the procedures in that court are, whether en banc appeals are common or highly unusual. They do exist on paper.

Very common, especially when 2A issues are concerned.

Is the controlling party here the (conservative/republican) US government, or the (progressive/democrat) AG of the District of Columbia? The legal situation of DC makes all these questions interestingly complex. I also have no idea what is going on in the heads of these people, and what they are planning.

DC is indeed weird but my understanding is that it's a local law that the USDoJ believes is unconstitutional. The law was passed in 2024 and Congress did not block or modify the statute.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

whatever it is it should signal to SCOTUS that Heller and Bruen are vague and their genius little abstract "test" needs to be more specific. At this point I just want to know, if we really gotta get rid of standard mags lets just rip off the band aid, being in a grey areas sucks.

 

[treelogger]

Very common, especially when 2A issues are concerned.

In the federal court of appeals, in particular the 9th circuit. The question we are discussing here is the DC court of appeals, which is NOT a federal circuit court. The District of Columbia is today more like a state than like the federal government, as far as having an AG and its own court system is concerned (although only "more like" and "not completely identical to").

DC is indeed weird but my understanding is that it's a local law that the USDoJ believes is unconstitutional.

But is the US DoJ relevant here? I don't know.

 

[treelogger]

whatever it is it should signal to SCOTUS that Heller and Bruen are vague and their genius little abstract "test" needs to be more specific.

They know that, and have said as much in Rahimi. We expect more clarification in the "marijuana felony" case that they just heard this week.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

In the federal court of appeals, in particular the 9th circuit. The question we are discussing here is the DC court of appeals, which is NOT a federal circuit court. The District of Columbia is today more like a state than like the federal government, as far as having an AG and its own court system is concerned (although only "more like" and "not completely identical to").


But is the US DoJ relevant here? I don't know.

The US DOJ was a defendent in the lawsuit

https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/Benson%20v%20US%20et%20al%2023-CV-0541%20FINAL.pdf

 

[Deleted member 16735]

They know that, and have said as much in Rahimi. We expect more clarification in the "marijuana felony" case that they just heard this week.

only non marijuana users can have standard mags and AW, everyone else needs 10 rounds and fin grips