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.
He argues that taking an AR-15 case first and getting a win there sets a better precedent for the mags and suppressor cases.
Maybe they'll take the Washington case over it?They may deny it, they are probably waiting to see how other cases play out or not getting the fourth vote
There are two gun rights cases the court heard this year, and hasn't ruled on yet. The sensible guess it that they will GVR after those two cases, to be re-decided in light of those decisions.It’s what they’re waiting for.
We’ve discussed this at length in the past, and GVR could happen. However, looking back on the proceedings for the two cases, it’s hard to see a decision in either which would apply to the grounds of Duncan.There are two gun rights cases the court heard this year, and hasn't ruled on yet. The sensible guess it that they will GVR after those two cases, to be re-decided in light of those decisions.
If you’re referring to Gator’s, it is not well developed and came up through the state court, not the federal. More importantly, while it, like Duncan, hinges on the definition of “arm”, the statute in Gator’s contains a grandfather clause allowing individuals to retain their mags. The Duncan statute doesn’t, and Duncan is fully developed through two full trips up the appellate ladder. So a decision in Gator to support the statute will be in friction with approval of the law under Duncan. Essentially all LCMs would be banned, but Washingtonians could keep theirs while Californians would be disposed. That would constitute unequal enforcement between states.Maybe they'll take the Washington case over it?
as always, i appreciate the knowledge and updates DvrjonIf you’re referring to Gator’s, it is not well developed and came up through the state court, not the federal. More importantly, while it, like Duncan, hinges on the definition of “arm”, the statute in Gator’s contains a grandfather clause allowing individuals to retain their mags. The Duncan statute doesn’t, and Duncan is fully developed through two full trips up the appellate ladder. So a decision in Gator to support the statute will be in friction with approval of the law under Duncan. Essentially all LCMs would be banned, but Washingtonians could keep theirs while Californians would be disposed. That would constitute unequal enforcement between states.
That won’t work.
Thanks, but the caveat there is I really try for sane, balanced and logical analysis. I also am not one of the Supreme Nine, in part because of that.as always, i appreciate the knowledge and updates Dvrjon![]()
For background, here’s a link to a March discussion. Please see: https://caguns.net/threads/duncan-v...agazine-prohibition.26642/page-40#post-134045Maybe they'll take the Washington case over it?
You might very well be right. I would not bet a whole six-pack against that, but perhaps one bottle.At this point, I’m leaning toward carry-over for next session.
Thanks for clearing that up!If you’re referring to Gator’s, it is not well developed and came up through the state court, not the federal. More importantly, while it, like Duncan, hinges on the definition of “arm”, the statute in Gator’s contains a grandfather clause allowing individuals to retain their mags. The Duncan statute doesn’t, and Duncan is fully developed through two full trips up the appellate ladder. So a decision in Gator to support the statute will be in friction with approval of the law under Duncan. Essentially all LCMs would be banned, but Washingtonians could keep theirs while Californians would be disposed. That would constitute unequal enforcement between states.
That won’t work.
I would love to see a world in which Duncan is heard before Alito and Thomas, but I'm a bit pessimistic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there is anything requiring SCOTUS to grant cert for the current term. They could simply grant Duncan and assign it to next term, no? If so, the number of relists don't make sense.We’ve discussed this at length in the past, and GVR could happen. However, looking back on the proceedings for the two cases, it’s hard to see a decision in either which would apply to the grounds of Duncan.
In my opinion, yes. I think it'll go for another run down and back up. 3-4 years I'm guessing, but I'd love to be wrong. Ca and CA9 won't roll over on this, so I think it's up to the conservatives on the supreme courtYou think we'll still be dealing with it years from now?
Nope… https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-203.html Denied after 16 distributions.What's the record for most relists before a denial of cert? Is it Snope?