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

[Dvrjon]

The appeal process surrounding mag bans in California is not over. CRPA filed a petition for certiorari a few days ago. It’s not even up to citizens anymore.

A few days ago, CRPA filed a petition to update the Court on a recent lower court decision in the Benson magazine case. But that wasn’t a petition for certiorari. That petition and the response to it were discussed above.

This entire thread is about the Duncan magazine ban case for which CRPA filed a petition for certiorari in August of 2025. It has been under consideration for 7 months now. Some 3 years prior to that, Duncan had been submitted for certiorari but was GVR’d for review under Bruen.

This particular case has been in the courts for almost 10 years.

 

[Dvrjon]

Laws are mostly state level. At the federal level mag bans are all but rejected.

It’s not a popular opinion to ban magazine capacity. It’s not a normal or conventional thought. And it’s not likely something that will become a federal law.

That was the prevailing thought in 1993. In 1994, the federal government passed, and the President signed, a ten-year ban on assault weapons and high capacity (>10 round) magazines. This is offered not to start a debate on the issue, but to merely point out that it has happened in the past.

 

[grandpapeepap]

Then they got crushed in the midterms after passing that AWB with a sunset clause. Something Clinton has talked about

 

[Dvrjon]

Duncan has been redistributed for conference of 20 March.

Docket for 25-198

 

[Dvrjon]

Then they got crushed in the midterms after passing that AWB with a sunset clause. Something Clinton has talked about

And in 2019, he called for reinstitution of the ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

One minute into the recording included at this link: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/p...linton-reinstate-the-assault-weapons-ban-now/

But elected officials, especially, must go beyond offering thoughts and prayers. Mass shootings keep happening, on a near-weekly basis, and the one thing we know can make them less frequent and less deadly has not been done: namely, reinstating the assault weapons ban and the limit on high-capacity magazines that were in effect from 1994 to 2004.

He continues in this vein, today. He’s just advocating for strategies which retain votes.

 

[grandpapeepap]

And in 2019, he called for reinstitution of the ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

One minute into the recording included at this link: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/p...linton-reinstate-the-assault-weapons-ban-now/


He continues in this vein, today. He’s just advocating for strategies which retain votes.

Thats some dedication that you are willing to get crushed twice for the same thing.

 

[Dvrjon]

Thats some dedication that you are willing to get crushed twice for the same thing.

Note that he's neither serving nor running. He's advocating that others stand up and take the bullet risk their careers.

 

[Deleted member 11316]

A few days ago, CRPA filed a petition to update the Court on a recent lower court decision in the Benson magazine case. But that wasn’t a petition for certiorari. That petition and the response to it were discussed above.

This entire thread is about the Duncan magazine ban case for which CRPA filed a petition for certiorari in August of 2025. It has been under consideration for 7 months now. Some 3 years prior to that, Duncan had been submitted for certiorari but was GVR’d for review under Bruen.

This particular case has been in the courts for almost 10 years.

I will not pretend to understand the minutiae of legalese. I work in aerospace.

Either way the case being in the courts for 10 years isn’t a signal for hopelessness.

 

[tomrkba]

I will not pretend to understand the minutiae of legalese. I work in aerospace.

Either way the case being in the courts for 10 years isn’t a signal for hopelessness.

It's a decade of our rights being denied. This is the system messing with our rights.

Remember, a firearm must be "dangerous AND unusual" to lose 2A protection. Magazines of standard capacity are in common use (greater than approximately 200k in circulation); therefore, they cannot be "unusual". Furthermore, any part that "facilitates self defense"--which such magazines do successfully--has 2A protection, as already ruled on by SCOTUS. The framework is well known and there should be NO Duncan v Bonta case at all, just as there should be no capacity limit in any part of the USA.

But here we are with courts continuing to play games and not resolve that which has already been ruled upon.

 

[Dvrjon]

I will not pretend to understand the minutiae of legalese. I work in aerospace.

The intent was to raise your awareness, along with others who might have been mislead by your assertion.

That appears to have been successful.

Fortunately, Aerospace is not so encumbered by minutia….Lift/Drag/Thrust/Gravity = Push the stick forward and the houses get bigger; Pull the stick back and the houses get smaller. (Told to me by a VN War F-4 fighter pilot many years ago - - RIP, Woody).

 

[Batman]

Note that he's neither serving nor running. He's advocating that others stand up and take the bullet risk their careers.

And that's a risk he's willing to take!!

 

[john2736]

Another 2 week wait? Im tryna buy 30 rd mags

 

[treelogger]

Another 2 week wait? Im tryna buy 30 rd mags

My educated guess: It will be way more than 2 weeks.

I'm going to go out on a limb and actually place a bet. Here's my reasoning: If the Supreme Court wanted to outright reject cert, and let the current 9'th circuit ruling stand (which leaves the ban on buying LCM in place, and additionally criminalized continued possession of grandfathered LCMs), they could have done that long ago. If a majority of 6 justices were of the opinion that the current 9CA Duncan ruling violates Bruen, they could have summary reversed it, but they did not. It at least 4 justices thought the violation of Bruen was important enough to brief and argue, they could have granted cert long ago. That leaves only one realistic option: They want to GVR the case, after ruling on the two 2A cases, Hemani and Wolford, which are currently being decided. Those two cases are the only thing that will change the 2A landscape during the current waiting period. Those two cases will probably modify how Bruen is to be applied, but we don't know how or in which direction. After a GVR, the case goes back at least to the 9CA (or perhaps back to the district court, I don't know the detailed rules), which will take at least a year, more likely 2 or 3.

So let's assume they GVR. Unless the two upcoming rulings completely change the 2A landscape (unlikely), the 9CA will likely come back to the same result we have now. So in 1-3 years, we'll be back where we are right now. But if Wolford and Hemani change everything, we could get a different result.

 

[claycrusher]

important update:

 

[shroom]

If the Supreme Court wanted to outright reject cert, and let the current 9'th circuit ruling stand (which leaves the ban on buying LCM in place, and additionally criminalized continued possession of grandfathered LCMs), they could have done that long ago.

I'm sure that's what everyone was thinking for Snope v. Brown, which was relisted 15 times before being denied. I try to remain optimistic but there's a real possibility that there's 1 or 2 justices who stubbornly keep bringing it up for conference despite there not being 4 votes to grant cert, or 5 votes to GVR the case.

 

[Dvrjon]

My educated guess: It will be way more than 2 weeks.

I agree, and think they don’t want to take Duncan because if they rule in favor or against, it will create a tectonic shift in 2A issues. But, ruling against Duncan might force the review of the Takings clause. Their problem here is that they are also considering Gator’s Custom Arms.

Gator’s Custom Guns hit the court at about the same time and is tracking with it. Gator’s issue is identical to Duncan’s with three divergents:
1. The case comes from the Washington (state) Supreme Court, not a federal appeals court;
2. The case documentation is sparse and not well-developed; and,
3. The Washington law contains a grandfather aspect which allows retention of owned mags, thus avoiding the Takings consideration of Duncan.

If the court decides for Gator’s the same shift takes place and the the 2A issues of Duncan fall. SCOTUS either directs a per curiam decision on Duncan or GVRs it for reconsideration under Gator’s ruling. But, the court has a problem if they decide against Gator’s because that kills Duncan and allows for the taking of CA mags while allowing Washingtonians to keep their mags.

It also would establish that every accessory to the firearm is not protected from local government control.

So, confronting the issue of whether mags are arms creates a no-win conclusion, and they, as a body, want neither Gator’s nor Duncan to be heard (I’m sure some Justices would want them brought forward).

But, the focus here isn’t magazines; it’s the process of reviewing current law under Bruen and how that process should be applied. I agree that the Court is looking for a case which speaks to process, not product, so they can decide Duncan and Gator without deciding the specific issue of whether magazines are “arms”. Both Gator’s and Duncan are now frozen in amber (although, they could be carried over to next session).

As you conclude, that leaves SCOTUS with Wolford and Hemani for this session to find clarity in the process without touching on product.

If they do so, expect another game of Chutes and Ladders, SCOTUS-style as they GVR both back to district.

 

[Dvrjon]

important update:

 

[treelogger]

I like your analysis.

But, ruling against Duncan might force the review of the Takings clause.

I don't see that as so important. The takings clause has long been understood to not apply for forced destruction, but only to the government taking something (real estate = eminent domain or tangible property) for its own use. The government regularly makes existing property devalue or useless or forces it to be destroyed, without that triggering having to reimburse the owner. Or do you think drug dealers get their meth back, or get a billion dollar check for the ton of cocaine that was found on the speedboat?

But, the focus here isn’t magazines; it’s the process of reviewing current law under Bruen and how that process should be applied.

That is exactly the important point. Most 2A advocates focus on details, like "why 10 rounds and not 7 or 15" or "the thing that goes up". The Supreme Court has way too little time to focus on details like that, or on details like what company can pollute what waterway. It is interested in the big procedural questions: How shall courts follow the guidelines the Supreme Court sets? What is the balance of power between the three branches? How broadly can laws be interpreted by agencies?

If they do so, expect another game of Chutes and Ladders, SCOTUS-style as they GVR both back to district.

I like the "chutes and ladders" image. That is the thing inherent in the legal process.

 

[Dvrjon]

{Re: the Takings Clause}
I don't see that as so important. The takings clause has long been understood to not apply for forced destruction, but only to the government taking something (real estate = eminent domain or tangible property) for its own use. The government regularly makes existing property devalue or useless or forces it to be destroyed, without that triggering having to reimburse the owner. Or do you think drug dealers get their meth back, or get a billion dollar check for the ton of cocaine that was found on the speedboat?

The Takings issue only raises its head if Gator’s is unsuccessful and Duncan isn’t heard. That would uphold both Washington and California magazine bans. However, in Washington, owners would retain their mags and Californians would be dispossessed. That brings in 14th Amendment issues of equal protection in Takings. (Of course, Washington will immediately modify their law to dispossess owners to align with the CA statute).

The Washington law:


Your analogue to drug dealers retaining contraband seems inapt, as that is exactly what will happen if Gator’s fails.

The manufacture, distribution, import and sale of large capacity magazines (drugs) will be banned, yet the current owners of such magazines (your drug dealers) get to keep their magazines (drugs). Meanwhile, in California, possession of the drugs (magazines) is banned, requiring drug owners (magazine possessors) to destroy or modify their drugs (large capacity magazines), thus taking the product from its rightful owner.

I like the "chutes and ladders" image. That is the thing inherent in the legal process.

Regrettably, the legal system holds more “chutes” than “ladders”. And I find a dice throw or spin of the wheel to be substantially less arbitrary and capricious than robed figures with their thumbs on the scale.

 

[Dvrjon]

It’s not illegal to posses a standard capacity magazine in California. The burden is on the state to prove you didn’t buy it during freedom week.

Simple possession is totally legal. You won’t find an instance of someone being booked for simple possession of a standard or high capacity magazine. It’s tagged on to other crime. If you’re not a criminal what are you worried about?

Simple possession of a large capacity magazine (that’s what California banned) is currently illegal in California. The statute exists, but enforcement of its provisions has been stayed for a decade pending appeal of the district court finding in Duncan (this thread) that the statute is unconstitutional. Please see: https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-relea...appeal-district-court-decision-large-capacity

Additionally, CA PENAL CODE 32390 establishes any Large Capacity Magazine as a nuisance subject to confiscation/destruction. Please see: https://law.justia.com/codes/califo...ivision-10/chapter-5/article-1/section-32390/

Given the court’s stay on enforcement of the possession ban, this nuisance provision has not been used recently.

As to the state needing to disprove the magazine was legally-acquired, that may hold right up to the moment that one declares the magazines were obtained during Freedom Week.

In 2020, Pheng Yang was charged with possession of LCMs and he claimed they were obtained during Freedom Week. He refused to substantiate the claim and wound up in protracted court proceedings which culminated with his attorney providing proof of legal acquisition. The charges were then dropped and he was found “factually innocent”. Please see: https://abc30.com/post/south-valley...v_web_content_rec-539*variant_c_trending-2268

Best.