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

[Dvrjon]

Benson Aside:

This is not good. With the DC case going the opposite direction, I thought they might have taken it this past Fri.

They usually set it forward for the next Friday conference. It was delayed for a bit as they received Supplemental Briefiings on Benson.

However, Benson isn't a Final Decision (it was a split panel).

On Mar 18, District of Columbia filed for en bank review.
On Mar 23, the Court directed:

Order that within 14 days from the date of this order, appellant Tyree Benson is directed, and appellee United States is invited, to file a response to the petition for rehearing en banc. Any motion for an extension of time will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances.

So, we wait until Apr 6 (or Apr 7) at the latest to see if the parties respond, then wait for the Court to make a decision as to whether en banc review goes forward.
If it does (and it will) Benson will continue to be unsettled for quite some time. If so, it can't be cited as a circuit split because the decison isn't final.
/Benson Aside.

 

[Dvrjon]

I have this weird gut feeling they're gonna hold duncan for Hemani, then GVR with new guidance.... again

Hard to argue against. As I’ve said before, I think the are looking for a “process” issue which will lead to re-evaluation of the “product” cases (AWs; LCMs, etc.)
I’m hoping they crack a process issue which allows mandate to the lower courts to find in favor. Remember, Duncan has been up, down and up through the lower courts twice, with wins each time at the district and appellate panel. But failure at the en banc level. If SCOTUS can strike a process finding which destroys the en banc rationales, they might be able to direct remand to the 9 CA with a directive to comply.

(I’m a “glass half-full” kinda guy.)

 

[DBilleb]

Pretty simple case……utilize Bruen and attempt to state an example of history and tradition. If unable….

-dale

 

[Jimi Jah]

I won't spend a dime on lawyers trying to defend possession of 10+ round mags here. They aren't worth that cost considering I can drive to Yuma and buy some for a few bucks. Gas is cheaper than lawyers.

Besides, ammo is too expensive to mag dump 30 rounders.

 

[Dvrjon]

I won't spend a dime on lawyers trying to defend possession of 10+ round mags here. They aren't worth that cost considering I can drive to Yuma and buy some for a few bucks. Gas is cheaper than lawyers.

Besides, ammo is too expensive to mag dump 30 rounders.

First, thanks so much for supporting the thousands of CA gun owners who don’t live within driving distance to Yuma.

But, you miss the larger point.

Duncan, while focused on the “product” of LCMs isn’t about mags.

It’s about lower court interpretation and application of Bruen guidance and policy. In Duncan, the state is claiming that mags are accessories, not arms. If something as essential as a magazine is found to not be protected by the 2A, then every other accessory can fall under local control. Sights, optics, grips, barrels. In a broad sense, everything other than the receiver and fire control group might be banned.

Already, in California barrels and parts are now under constrained purchase rules. What do you think will happen next? And if they’re banned, buying stuff in Yuma and bringing it in will not be an option.

 

[northbay shooter]

First, thanks so much for supporting the thousands of CA gun owners who don’t live within driving distance to Yuma.

But, you miss the larger point.

Duncan, while focused on the “product” of LCMs isn’t about mags.

It’s about lower court interpretation and application of Bruen guidance and policy. In Duncan, the state is claiming that mags are accessories, not arms. If something as essential as a magazine is found to not be protected by the 2A, then every other accessory can fall under local control. Sights, optics, grips, barrels. In a broad sense, everything other than the receiver and fire control group might be banned.

Already, in California barrels and parts are now under constrained purchase rules. What do you think will happen next? And if they’re banned, buying stuff in Yuma and bringing it in will not be an option.

100%. Most of us are already seeing lots of suppliers saying they can't ship anything to CA without us providing a copy of our DL and having the delivery signature required, and only the person that ordered (and provided DL) can sign. I have had it happen twice. Once to buy a mag well and one to by a mag grip. I have seen posts about requirements for front sights and plastic ammo boxes.

While the law may not be specific enough for the above, if suppliers interpret it that way, it's the same as another backdoor ban. AB 1263 and Senate Bill 704 are what happens when we allow these challenges to continue without any decisions.

 

[Jimi Jah]

First, thanks so much for supporting the thousands of CA gun owners who don’t live within driving distance to Yuma.

But, you miss the larger point.

The point is nothing will improve here with our one party system. The Supreme Court won't help either. Folks will need to figure out their own solutions. Mine is traveling to a free state.

California is Cuba with newer cars. Until voters make a change there won't be any change here.

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

Looking very good.

 

[Hit Factor]

California is Cuba with newer cars. Until voters make a change there won't be any change here.

^^ This.

 

[Dvrjon]

Another tidbit from Benson which utilizes Duncan in it's rational. The Amici Brief includes California support.

 

[adrkwan]

Another tidbit from Benson which utilizes Duncan in it's rational. The Amici Brief includes California support.

I still find it funny that they dodged the question of why an 11 round magazine is "unusually dangerous" as opposed to a 10 round or 15 round magazine. The magical number still seems to be arbitrary and capricious. They also made a factual error - "Since the District’s law only limits access to the eleventh bullet before pausing to reload, it does not have any impact on common magazine usage in self-defense." You can have a round chambered and 10 in the magazine so you'd technically have access to the eleventh bullet without pausing to reload. Does that make your semi auto pistol "unusually dangerous" in that configuration?

I always thought it was weird that Bruen's allowance for weapons in "common use for self-defense" somehow skirted around what regulations applied to police. Police are technically only allowed to use deadly force in the self defense or defense of others from imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. They should do a survey to see how many officers carry 10 round magazines when off duty.

This brief sounds like CA and others are desperate to avoid further review since a split is now present.

 

[Dvrjon]

I still find it funny that they dodged the question of why an 11 round magazine is "unusually dangerous" as opposed to a 10 round or 15 round magazine. The magical number still seems to be arbitrary and capricious. They also made a factual error - "Since the District’s law only limits access to the eleventh bullet before pausing to reload, it does not have any impact on common magazine usage in self-defense." You can have a round chambered and 10 in the magazine so you'd technically have access to the eleventh bullet without pausing to reload. Does that make your semi auto pistol "unusually dangerous" in that configuration?

I view it differently. The 1st round is the 1st loaded, so it is in the bottom of the mag. The 11th round is in the chamber. So, I immediately access the 11th round for the 1st shot.

 

[Dvrjon]

30 Mar: Orders don’t appear to include Duncan (Case # 25-198).
(12) Distributed for 2 Apr conference

 

[Dvrjon]

6 Apr: Orders don’t appear to include Duncan (Case # 25-198).
Next conference is 16 April, so redistribution will be delayed.

 

[MosinKalash]

6 Apr: Orders don’t appear to include Duncan (Case # 25-198). https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040626zor_5iek.pdf

Two more two more weeks?

 

[shroom]

What's the count now? Are we at more relists than Snope yet?

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

Two more two more weeks?

As I've predicted before. We aren't getting these wins until right before midterms.

 

[jnorr]

What's the count now? Are we at more relists than Snope yet?

Either 13 or 14….

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

As I've predicted before. We aren't getting these wins until right before midterms.

They stop hearing arguments at the end of April and the term ends in a month and a half. It doesn't start up again until the first week of October.

When is it you believe they will hear arguments and issue a decision prior to the midterms?

 

[Dvrjon]

What's the count now? Are we at more relists than Snope yet?

Snopes was distributed 16 times.

Redistribution of Duncan will be 13, but won’t be announced soon, as the next conference isn’t until April 16.