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!

WBT GUNS- The best selection of CA legal Firearms

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

Dang. I wonder what clown this is going to get assigned to when it's remanded.
... assuming it is remanded. Maybe SCOTUS is just going to abandon us
Sad day
 
Dvrjon said:
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.
Click to expand...

If this were really just about mags SCOTUS could’ve taken it already and dealt w it directly. The fact that it keeps getting relisted makes me think theyre more interested in tightening how NY State Rifle & Pistol Ass v Bruen is being applied than jumping straight to ruling. Because once you frame mags as accessories youre not just deciding Duncan (CA) you’re setting up a framework that could reach everything else attached to a firearm which is a much bigger question the courts would want to be deliberate about before acting.

Benson (WA DC) isn’t final yet and it makes even more sense why they’d slow this down rather than rush into a merits decision. A GVR w clearer Bruen instructions seems more likely. This feels less like theyre deciding whether to act and more like theyre deciding how far they want the ripple effects to go once they do.
 
nakatomi said:
If this were really just about mags SCOTUS could’ve taken it already and dealt w it directly. The fact that it keeps getting relisted makes me think theyre more interested in tightening how NY State Rifle & Pistol Ass v Bruen is being applied than jumping straight to ruling. Because once you frame mags as accessories youre not just deciding Duncan (CA) you’re setting up a framework that could reach everything else attached to a firearm which is a much bigger question the courts would want to be deliberate about before acting.

Benson (WA DC) isn’t final yet and it makes even more sense why they’d slow this down rather than rush into a merits decision. A GVR w clearer Bruen instructions seems more likely. This feels less like theyre deciding whether to act and more like theyre deciding how far they want the ripple effects to go once they do.
Click to expand...
See Post 796 for concurrence,
 
I’m expecting the relists to continue until the 3rd circuit en banc panel issues its ruling on ANJRPC. That ruling is widely expected to go pro-2A. Then we will have a legit circuit split at the federal level.
 
Last edited:
tenemae said:
Maybe SCOTUS is just going to abandon us
Sad day
Click to expand...
The SC is done with gun laws. It's as good (or bad) as it's going to get. If you want more favorable gun laws you will need to vote with your feet. Even that won't last. Arizona has so many libs in office now their gun laws are bound to change for the worse. That's mostly because too many Californians are changing that state.

The direction of the courts is going to be more liberal down the road. Appoint a so called conservative and you have a 50/50 chance they will turn liberal. Add to that the fear of retaliation justices must now deal with. That alone will dampen any enthusiasm any judge might have to take on another gun case.
 
with the latest redistribution of the case for 4/24, is there enough time in this term for them to hear it and publish a decision? Or is the thought they would take if for the next term?
 
They will definitely not hear this case this term if granted cert. Maybe october. But I don't think they're going to hear this case. I strongly believe we are either waiting for news of denial, or a(nother!!!) GVR to accompany Wolford or Hemani
 
northbay shooter said:
with the latest redistribution of the case for 4/24, is there enough time in this term for them to hear it and publish a decision? Or is the thought they would take if for the next term?
Click to expand...
This Orders list shows two cases being granted cert, so cases can get in. However, since the case presents significant specific questions (are magazines arms?) I agree with tenemae in the sense that the court can get to the underlying policy issues through Wolford and Hemani without touching or ruling on the specific “product” (magazines) presented in Duncan.

That means a GVR, but hopefully with guidance to direct a verdict.
 
gorgothmog said:
Is this a full merits case? Has a final decision been entered by a trial court?
Click to expand...
It's equally developed as Duncan. Already been up to SCOTUS, GVRd back down, and back up again. In fact both Duncan and ANJRPC were GVRd at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom