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

[Experimentalist]

Aren't judges allowed to ask clarifying hypotheticals? "What if circumstances required a magazine to be inserted in order for the firearm to function?"

 

[Dvrjon]

Aren't judges allowed to ask clarifying hypotheticals? "What if circumstances required a magazine to be inserted in order for the firearm to function?"

Has that been asked and answered in the last 10 years?

Personally, I would have thought our side would have hammered on that by now.

I also would believe that Judge Benetiz would have asked, if possible.

But, as I’ve said, I’m unaware that it has been broached. If it had, I would think this would be over by now.

 

[adrkwan]

Magazine Disconnect Mechanisms (MDM) have not, to my knowledge, been at issue during arguments.
Judge Van Dyke’s video doesn’t address them, and shouldn’t address them, as he would be testifying as to issues which are not a part of the record.

Plus, here’s his video. If you can find it, cite a time stamp. But he never pulls the trigger to show the gun can’t fire without the mag.

You are correct, I must have misremembered.

 

[treelogger]

Not at all certain how you landed there.

Here is my (pessimist) line of argument. At issue in Duncan are two things: (a) Are LCMs even part of the subject matter of the 2A? (b) If they are, how is Bruen to be applied to determine whether there is tradition protecting them. As you explained, neither Hemani nor Wolford change the situation on (a) at all. And while Wolford does have guidance on (b), the fact that Duncan already (in the current posture) fails at (a) means that, as you say, Wolford can't be used to GVR Duncan. So a GVR now would be illogical.

That leaves two realistic options: grant cert (which means pretty much move it to the next annual term), or deny it. If they wanted to grant cert on the question in (a), they could have done that roughly 22 conferences ago; that calculus has not changed at all. So I fear only the remaining option is to deny. (And yes, there are other things the court can do which happen rarely, and I'm not an expert on).

If they deny Duncan, they have to deny Gator’s. That creates an unequal application of the law because CA owners will lose their mags.

Unequal application of property rights is a long standing tradition, and nobody seems to care. My (un-) favorite example is the treatment of vehicles as pollution laws get tightened. Some vehicles are required to be disabled by having the engine seized (they replace the oil with a concrete-like substance); this was applied to gross polluter gasoline passenger cars. Other can' be registered for on-road usage (this was pre-DEF heavy trucks), but can continue to be owned and operated off-road in the state if non-oped, or sold into neighboring states. As the giant flood of California used heavy trucks flooded neighboring states, their used truck market collapsed. In a nutshell, CARB and neighboring states' similar agencies destroyed dozen of billions of value, in most cases with no compensation, in some cases with only token amounts. And the process was completely uneven and unfair.

Property rights claims were tried, and failed. The fact that car and truck owners in neighboring states are treated very differently hasn't even made a difference. Personally, I think this is a complete disaster ... but nobody listens to me.

 

[DB>)>]

Judges are allowed to cite case law, does it always have to be a cite presented by the parties?

In this case the black letter law is 100% definitive as to the MD requirement for a firearm (handgun) to be sold in CA as a part of the same law that sets a 10round mag cap, there's no "interpretation", should be no reason to not be able to say "the sky is blue" when one party says it's chartreuse with pink stripes as a part of their argument as to what the law states? Or must we be forced to go by ever changing "rules by whim"?

As far as admission into record, the "accessory/accoutrement" argument is, I believe, a relatively recent novel approach to "sidestep" the law by randomly redefining terms, however creatively it may be done...

The anti-gun crowd loves to play word games with things if it's a means to the end. It should not be prevented procedurally if they keep moving the pieces to change the rules of their "game", and SCOTUS should call "foul"!

The mention of the takings clause I mentioned above is material to Duncan, whether mags are property or "firearms". SCOTUS should not allow the shenanigans of the 9th to randomly play such crazy games.

 

[Dvrjon]

That leaves two realistic options: grant cert (which means pretty much move it to the next annual term), or deny it. If they wanted to grant cert on the question in (a), they could have done that roughly 22 conferences ago; that calculus has not changed at all. So I fear only the remaining option is to deny. (And yes, there are other things the court can do which happen rarely, and I'm not an expert on).

If they wanted to grant deny cert on the question in (a), they could have done that roughly 22 conferences ago; that calculus has not changed at all.

The extensions indicate that there is support to grant or deny it. They can hold it over until next session without granting cert. It costs nothing to kick it down the road to the Fall large conference. But, I repeat myself… https://caguns.net/threads/duncan-v...agazine-prohibition.26642/page-50#post-156610

Property rights claims were tried, and failed. The fact that car and truck owners in neighboring states are treated very differently hasn't even made a difference. Personally, I think this is a complete disaster ... but nobody listens to me.

I’m listening… Vehicle issues or Duncan?

 

[BeAuMaN]

They can hold it over until next session without granting cert. It costs nothing to kick it down the road to the Fall large conference. But, I repeat myself… https://caguns.net/threads/duncan-v...agazine-prohibition.26642/page-50#post-156610

But this is the moment! The final countdown! To make all the dramatic Duncan countdown videos! Surely it's not that simple!

 

[Dvrjon]

But this is the moment! The final countdown! To make all the dramatic Duncan countdown videos! Surely it's not that simple!

Copper Jacket…is that you?

 

[adrkwan]

Property rights claims were tried, and failed. The fact that car and truck owners in neighboring states are treated very differently hasn't even made a difference. Personally, I think this is a complete disaster ... but nobody listens to me.

The property right argument is subsumed by the first question - whether or not regulation of LCMs falls under the 2A. States are generally allowed to modify their property rights as long as they do not violate a constitutional right.

 

[Gawernator]

Oakland dog has spoken, I listen

 

[Jcwatchdog]

Copper Jacket…is that you?

And one day Armed Scholar will have a video with a true title, but everyone will ignore him because he’s like the little boy who cried wolf

 

[Dvrjon]

Property rights claims were tried, and failed. The fact that car and truck owners in neighboring states are treated very differently hasn't even made a difference. Personally, I think this is a complete disaster ... but nobody listens to me.

To amplify @adrkwan’s statement, above: In Wolford, Justice Jackson tried her best to sell the case as a “property” issue.

The Court said (Opinion, Page 18, Footnote 13)

13 The principal dissent’s main argument is that “[t]his case is about
property rights, not gun rights.” Post, at 6 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). Be-
cause a State is generally free to alter traditional property-law principles
as it chooses, the dissent contends that Hawaii’s alteration of the tradi-
tional rule on access to private property open to the public does not in-
fringe Second Amendment rights. This argument fails because States
may not adopt property-law rules that violate constitutional rights. For
example, a State may not adopt property-law rules that violate the free-
dom of speech. See, e.g., Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U. S. 155, 159
(2015) (ordinance regulating signs on private property); City of Ladue v.
Gilleo, 512 U. S. 43, 45 (1994) (similar). Nor may a State adopt zoning
rules that violate the equal protection of the laws. See, e.g., Buchanan
v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60 (1917). Likewise, a State may not “ ‘sidestep the
Takings Clause’ ” by enacting a law purporting to extinguish a property
interest. Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U. S. 631, 638–639 (2023). The
right protected by the Second Amendment is entitled to no less protection
than other constitutional rights.

 

[Dvrjon]

And one day Armed Scholar will have a video with a true title, but everyone will ignore him because he’s like the little boy who cried wolf.

Jeeez, I completely forgot that clown is still operating. Thanks SO MUCH for reminding me. = 8-(

 

[Gawernator]

Jeeez, I completely forgot that clown is still operating. Thanks SO MUCH for reminding me. = 8-(

Happy to know that the algorithm has never shown me either of those two channels

 

[DB>)>]

That "sidestep the Takings Clause by enacting a law purporting to extinguish a property interest" footnote may well be the most important foreshadowing of where Duncan is headed, IMO... though I still think that mags being rather integral to the use of most modern common use firearms prevents the goofy redefinition as "accessories" like a purse, shoes, or broach...

 

[SilverEndless]

Late to the convo since Wolford dropped. Has anyone discussed Alito’s opinion yet? WGL had a nice overview that has me optimistic for future 2A cases but sensing a GVR for Duncan

Thoughts?

 

[Dvrjon]

Late to the convo since Wolford dropped. Has anyone discussed Alito’s opinion yet? WGL had a nice overview that has me optimistic for future 2A cases but sensing a GVR for Duncan

Thoughts?

Discussion started 3 days ago (4 pages back).. https://caguns.net/threads/duncan-v...agazine-prohibition.26642/page-54#post-159256
Everything in the video has been churned and detailed a few times, including next actions (potential GVR).

Thoughts?

 

[SilverEndless]

Discussion started 3 days ago (4 pages back).. https://caguns.net/threads/duncan-v...agazine-prohibition.26642/page-54#post-159256
Everything in the video has been churned and detailed a few times, including next actions (potential GVR).

Thoughts?

I’ll go back and read

 

[AT&T Operator]

Tomorrow, if nothing else, will be exciting.

My Current Odds
--GVR: 18%
--Held: 36%
--Cert Granted: 32%
--Cert Denial: 12%
--Per Curiam Merits Reversal: 2%

Can't really see SCOTUS denying cert allowing CA to enforce its possession ban again if the injunction is lifted and the 9th's judgment becomes final.

 

[IrregularDefense]

Tomorrow, if nothing else, will be exciting.

My Current Odds
--GVR: 18%
--Held: 36%
--Cert Granted: 32%
--Cert Denial: 12%
--Per Curiam Merits Reversal: 2%

Can't really see SCOTUS denying cert allowing CA to enforce its possession ban again if the injunction is lifted and the 9th's judgment becomes final.

Where are the odds of carrying over? I'd say that actually has the highest percentage of them all