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

[1911-CV]

I get why you would say that the new microstamping law impacts PPT's, but that is not a correct understanding.

Please read the new PC 27533 Link to Actual Law and then note:
- It only applies to pistols ("...any semiautomatic pistol unless the pistol..." in subsection a);
- PPT are excluded by subsection e)(2) "A transaction conducted through a licensed firearms dealer pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 28050) of this division." PC Ch 5 28050 "CHAPTER 5. Procedure For a Private Party Firearms Transaction [28050 - 28070]"

(Edit: PC 28050 link corrected, not sure what happened... Thanks Dvrjon)

 

[Dvrjon]

^^All of the above^^, except the citation for PC 28050 is at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/...onNum=28050.&nodeTreePath=9.4.7.6&lawCode=PEN

 

[p--and--p]

hopefully so! Then it might have changed from a long time ago when that was the case. In either case, where will you PPT once gun stores are gone though? Ranges will be like one appointment per day, so by design it will kill PPT as well

 

[Dvrjon]

hopefully so! Then it might have changed from a long time ago when that was the case.

Stop the FUD. It’s not “hopefully so”. It’s a provision of the statute and has been in place since enactment in 2023. The statute hasn’t been changed.

In either case, where will you PPT once gun stores are gone though? Ranges will be like one appointment per day, so by design it will kill PPT as well.

If the gun stores are gone because of this, why do you think gun ranges will be selling?

Take a deep breath and read my signature block.

 

[p--and--p]

Stop the FUD. It’s not “hopefully so”. It’s a provision of the statute and has been in place since enactment in 2023. The statute hasn’t been changed.
If the gun stores are gone because of this, why do you think gun ranges will be selling?

Take a deep breath and read my signature block.

When microstamping comes back- the 2A is dead here in california.

Now re-read my statement. With no gun sales, most if not nearly all gun shops will be closed down. Even WITH ppt being excluded (I know it was not excluded in the beginning, but it seems that part never gained traction thankfully) where will you go for a PPT??? So thats what Im saying, even if PPT is still allowed there will be nowhere to do it- so it might as well be part of it. These guys think of everything and are just going for everything they can. I can't believe the extra 11% tax is now working on starting its 3rd year soon, even though it is straight up unconstitutional and should have been an easy win but yet here we are.
edit: my point on the ranges was not about sales?? Now some ranges will do PPT but they will come up with some limit to essentially kill it, maybe 1/day was my example and with so many PPT's happening daily and in so many places, even if ranges stay in business they will not be willing to handle PPT traffic.

 

[Skilly]

Bonta is up in November and Gates is a much better choice when it comes 2A issues.

 

[Skilly]

as of today, it was distributed for conference 5/14/2026.

Did we talk about Bonta's office filing a brief on 4/23 to bring this back to CA because of the DC case? How does SCOTUS typically respond to manipulation of the facts from a DA's office as they skate right by the significance of the takings clause violation?

 

[Dvrjon]

as of today, it was distributed for conference 5/14/2026.

Did we talk about Bonta's office filing a brief on 4/23 to bring this back to CA because of the DC case? How does SCOTUS typically respond to manipulation of the facts from a DA's office as they skate right by the significance of the takings clause violation?

You mean this? It’s merely a notification to the court of the Benson decision.

The Duncan case has a final decision from the 9CA in the state’s favor. There is no reason the state would want to withdraw the case and return it to California.

In the specific situation, the State didn’t ask for cert…WE did. If anybody has the ability to retrieve a case in process, it isn’t the respondent to the action. Please post if you have another document related to your post.

 

[Skilly]

You mean this? It’s merely a notification to the court of the Benson decision.

The Duncan case has a final decision from the 9CA in the state’s favor. There is no reason the state would want to withdraw the case and return it to California.

In the specific situation, the State didn’t ask for cert…WE did. If anybody has the ability to retrieve a case in process, it isn’t the respondent to the action. Please post if you have another document related to your post.

that was it. Just a layman reading it, the post from Bonta seemed to be an attempt to say "no conflict here" to suggest that Duncan had no reason to Cert.

 

[Dvrjon]

that was it. Just a layman reading it, the post from Bonta seemed to be an attempt to say "no conflict here" to suggest that Duncan had no reason to Cert.

The District Appeals court panel ruled against the D.C. magazine ban in a final decision. That may have been of interest to SCOTUS because it would indicate a circuit split.

But, the DC Appelate Court took the case en banc which nullifies the panel decision.

The order grants the District of Columbia’s petition for rehearing en banc, and vacates the panel’s opinion holding that the
District’s prohibition on firearm magazines holding more than ten rounds violates the Second Amendment.

Discussed at:
https://caguns.net/threads/duncan-v...agazine-prohibition.26642/page-39#post-133142

and,

https://caguns.net/threads/duncan-v...agazine-prohibition.26642/page-44#post-142993

 

[tenemae]

as of today, it was distributed for conference 5/14/2026

Cool. I'm guessing that means they'll publish orders from that on Friday, so we won't be waiting through a weekend to find out what happened (not that I expect anything to happen on this until other 2A opinions drop)

 

[Dvrjon]

Nope.

Cool. I'm guessing that means they'll publish orders from that on Friday, so we won't be waiting through a weekend to find out what happened (not that I expect anything to happen on this until other 2A opinions drop)

Last year, the court shifted to the same Thursday split conference/Non-Argument sessions. Posting of the conference results remained on Mondays.

 

[tenemae]

Opinions added to the calendar for tomorrow, per scotusblog

 

[Dvrjon]

Opinions added to the calendar for tomorrow, per scotusblog

Shouldn’t affect Duncan. From the blog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/05/announcement-of-opinions-for-thursday-may-14/

We will be live blogging as the court potentially releases opinions in one or more argued cases from the current term.

Duncan is un-argued and there is no decision.

 

[tenemae]

Shouldn’t affect Duncan

Technically true but... practically false? With the number of relists, the odds of GVR goes up in this case (I think). We're looking for an opinion in wolford or hemani (probably wolford) to immediately preceed a GVR. I like the double duty day, but admittedly, the spicier opinion to affect duncan will almost certainly be the last week of the session

 

[Dvrjon]

Technically true but... practically false? With the number of relists, the odds of GVR goes up in this case (I think). We're looking for an opinion in wolford or hemani (probably wolford) to immediately preceed a GVR. I like the double duty day, but admittedly, the spicier opinion to affect duncan will almost certainly be the last week of the session.

Technically and probably true. Given the court’s predilection for issuing 2A and other large decisions in late June (see: Rahimi, 24 June; MacDonald, 28 June; Heller, 26 Jun), it would be a surprise to see either Wolford or Hemani today.

There is always a possibility, but my sense is that the probability of seeing either today is small.

If it does happen, we won’t see GVR Orders until next week.

 

[Dvrjon]

For the curious….Decisions announced on 14 May:

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties

 

[Dvrjon]

18 May Orders don’t appear to include Duncan. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/051826zor_h315.pdf

 

[Dvrjon]

Back to Conference on 21 May.

This is # 17.

 

[Hit Factor]

Back to Conference on 21 May.

This is the one. Just remember where you heard it first.