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

[BeAuMaN]

Looks like we just went into overtime.

Gator’s
Duncan
Viramontes
National Association of Gun Rights
Grant

Are all on the docket (with a bunch of other stuff, I’m sure).

Welp, the only thing we know for sure: WE GOT MORE YOUTUBE VIDEOS SPECULATING ON THE WAY!

 

[Dvrjon]

Welp, the only thing we know for sure: WE GOT MORE YOUTUBE VIDEOS SPECULATING ON THE WAY!

Analyzing why it didn’t happen; why it is delayed and what will ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, perhaps maybe happen this week.

 

[Dvrjon]

I am very surprised. With Alito spelling out how to apply Bruen so thoroughly in Wolford, my not-a-lawyer gut said GVR was inevitable.

All Alito said is:

… a court must determine whether the law before it clashes with the “plain text” of the Amendment’s language. Id., at 24. This inquiry entails three subsidiary questions.
First, does the law apply to “the people”—which is to say, to “all members of the political community”? Heller, 554 U. S., at 580.
Second, does it concern any form of “Arms,” i.e., any weapon customarily used for offensive or defensive purposes? See id., at 584.
Third, does the law place any restrictions on either the “keep[ing]” (i.e., possession) or the “bear[ing]” (i.e., carrying) of arms? See Bruen, 597 U. S., at 32–33.

In Duncan, this process was followed and the questions are answered; however, the second question is in dispute. That is the point of Duncan.

In Duncan, the 9 CA asserts that:

First, the text of the Second Amendment does not encompass the right to possess large-capacity magazines because large-capacity magazines are neither “arms” nor protected accessories.

See Pg. 3, Paras 2&3 at: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/20/23-55805.pdf

Opposing briefs disagree, Page 2 @: (https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/2025-11-05-Petitioners-Reply-Brief.pdf )

The D.C. and Third Circuits have held that magazines fit squarely within the Second Amendment’s plain text, no matter whether they hold two rounds or 20. The First Circuit has assumed the same. But the Ninth and Seventh Circuits (plus Washington’s Supreme Court) have reached the opposite conclusion, holding that some or all magazines are not covered by the plain text at all.

Citations omitted.

So, the question of, “…does it concern any form of “Arms,” is unsettled and must be resolved by SCOTUS since Wolford does no work to clarify the outline of Step 1. That appears to make remanding to lower courts for review of the first question unlikely.

 

[hamdaddy]

Looks like we just went into overtime.

Gator’s
Duncan
Viramontes
National Association of Gun Rights
Grant

Are all on the docket (with a bunch of other stuff, I’m sure).

And now we wait........

 

[Dvrjon]

And now we wait........

Exciting, isn’t it? Kinda like Christmas Eve is coming but you don’t have a calendar and you’re waiting for either Santa or Krampus.

 

[hamdaddy]

Exciting, isn’t it? Kinda like Christmas Eve is coming but you don’t have a calendar and you’re waiting for either Santa or Krampus.

That's a great way to put it, haha!

 

[Experimentalist]

Ohhhh, the tension. The drama!

 

[hamdaddy]

View attachment 214794

This day is going to draaaaaag until we have an answer

 

[Sheepdog1968]

Looks like we just went into overtime.

Gator’s
Duncan
Viramontes
National Association of Gun Rights
Grant

Are all on the docket (with a bunch of other stuff, I’m sure).

This is like the most nerve racking Super Bowl game with your team in it and behind and time running out but a field goal will bring you the win.

 

[adrkwan]

This is like the most nerve racking Super Bowl game with your team in it and behind and time running out but a field goal will bring you the win.

Bring us into overtime...

 

[Pythonfan]

Bring us into overtime...

And if the people lose the game, they become criminals.

 

[Experimentalist]

Forgive my lack of understanding; are we likely to have some interesting results today? Or is this more a wait 'til Monday thing again?

 

[Jcwatchdog]

Forgive my lack of understanding; are we likely to have some interesting results today? Or is this more a wait 'til Monday thing again?

I don’t think we’ll have to wait for next Monday, maybe tonight or tomorrow.

 

[Experimentalist]

I don’t think we’ll have to wait for next Monday, maybe tonight or tomorrow.

No! Sleep! 'til Duncan!!

 

[Gravel]

Two more weeks?

 

[Dvrjon]

Two more weeks?

It's 8 pm on the East Coast. If the justices wrapped ltheir conference early and staff stayed late, we might get an Order List tomorrow. Otherwise, it will take a couple of days to pull it together.

 

[Experimentalist]

Appreciate the update, thank you.

 

[exnds]

This is almost as exciting as the Paraguay - Germany penalty kick shootout.

 

[Gawernator]

This is almost as exciting as the Paraguay - Germany penalty kick shootout.

sad day

 

[Dvrjon]

Yesterday’s afternoon conference appears to have had 9 relisted 2A cases:
Relists in parens.

Gator’s v. Washington (21): Mags
Duncan v. Bonta (21): Mags
Viramontes v. Cook (21): ARs + mags
National Association of Gun Rights v. Lamont (16): ARS + Mags
Grant v. Higgins (16): ARs

And 4 regarding 18-21 Age restrictions, each with just one relist:

W, Virginia Citizen’s Defense League v. BATFE
McCoy v. BATFE
Bivens v.2A Foundation
NRA v. Glass
//////////
Usually, Orders Lists come out at 6:30 on the Monday following the conference. At 6:45 am on Tuesday, no orders were out. Today is the last day of the session, so it’s unclear if we’ll see orders soon or if they drop next Monday.