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

[s786afg]

If they had GVR, there was a potential that nothing was going to be done for many years, basically resetting everything again. Or if they had denied them completely. I’ll admit I hated seeing a gay cake ruling before these, but it happened the way it happened. Just be thankful this was the best situation we could have hoped for. This will potentially destroy all AW bans, magazine bans, not to mention the roster will be next on the chopping block. I’ll wait a year for that.

So we have to wait another year for SCOTUS to review the AWB??

 

[AR15barrels]

So we have to wait another year for SCOTUS to review the AWB??

Yes.
That's the cases they accepted, but it's not CA's AWB.
After the SCOTUS says that AWB's are unconstitutional, THEN we can sue to have the CA AWB nullified.
That will take a few more years as the 9th circuit will no-doubt find a way to justify calling CA's version of the AWB legal because it's not the specific AWB that SCOTUS said was unconstitutional.

 

[Jcwatchdog]

So we have to wait another year for SCOTUS to review the AWB??

They will hear arguments at some point at the end of this year, October, November etc. The decision will be released around this time next year. It would have been nice if they had taken Snope and then the decision would ah e been out around today, but it didn’t happen that way. Be thankful. I’ve been waiting for this since the early 2000s.

 

[Jcwatchdog]

Yes.
That's the cases they accepted, but it's not CA's AWB.
After the SCOTUS says that AWB's are illegal, THEN we can sue to have the CA AWB nullified.
That will take a few more years as the 9th circuit will no-doubt find a way to justify calling CA's version of the AWB legal because it's not the specific AWB that SCOTUS said was unconstitutional.

I doubt that it would take long, maybe an injunction against the AWB here . The AW bans at issue are feature bans, cut and pasted from California pretty much word for word. The 9th can try, but even they may finally see they just need to give up. A declaratory judgment and injunction shouldn’t be hard to get.

 

[cali_jazz]

Personally, I hope to be able to put all of the “evil features” and the work arounds into a shadow box with a warning to my successors.Something along the lines of “Sic semper tyrannis,” or “Illigitimi Non Carborundum”.

Do you think we could get a one-time CA tax deduction on all the money we spent on this compliance crap? Still I would happily let bygones be bygones if I had my freedoms restored.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

So the way I understand it. Duncan wasn’t killed meaning CA can’t yet force those who legally own 10+ mags to get rid of them. It’s possible a ruling on the AR case they took could fix the 10+ mags as well. Though I would have preferred them to have taken Duncan, this isn’t as bad as things could have been.

 

[Dvrjon]

Do you think we could get a one-time CA tax deduction on all the money we spent on this compliance crap? Still I would happily let bygones be bygones if I had my freedoms restored.

I’d rather see a forced “buy back” of compliance crap (fins, compensators, etc.) at market prices to be managed by a 3d party so the state can’t FUBAR it. Simple administration would cost a bundle along with the valuation of the items. Then publicize the cost to the populace.

 

[Jcwatchdog]

Do you think we could get a one-time CA tax deduction on all the money we spent on this compliance crap? Still I would happily let bygones be bygones if I had my freedoms restored.

I think I’m going to take all the compliance parts and mold them together in some way as an art piece, and name it “Ode to the fall of Tyranny”

 

[SomeOne]

Do you think we could get a one-time CA tax deduction on all the money we spent on this compliance crap? Still I would happily let bygones be bygones if I had my freedoms restored.

Haha. You would be happy to dump it to the garbage can and post a pic here.

 

[MK6M9]

opinions? all these will be postponed or rejected, just like a couple of them have already been-- for how many years now?

right, which will take years. and also yes, a couple of those cases were rejected and then kicked back down to the 9th circuit and then appealed again and sent back up. (shrugs) you seem not to realize the endless game that is played with these lawsuits and how they are designed to go on forever with stay orders. and junctons. what was that one lawsuit that went on forever and then finally a decision was made? oh yeah was it heller ? and look at what that lawsuit was about and how long that took, which still did not help us for anything

(shrugs)

 

[shroom]

You guys know what'd be funny? Scotus rules that ARs and feature bans are unconsitutional.

For Miller the 9ca jumps through through massive mental hoops or flat out ignores the ruling like they've done with Bruen.

Miller gets appealed to the SC. Court relists it 12 times then GVR's it.

 

[jkcerda]

You guys know what'd be funny? Scotus rules that ARs and feature bans are unconsitutional.

For Miller the 9ca jumps through through massive mental hoops or flat out ignores the ruling like they've done with Bruen.

Miller gets appealed to the SC. Court relists it 12 times then GVR's it.

SCOTUS ruling makes things more difficult for prosecutors.

 

[exnds]

You guys know what'd be funny? Scotus rules that ARs and feature bans are unconsitutional.

For Miller the 9ca jumps through through massive mental hoops or flat out ignores the ruling like they've done with Bruen.

Miller gets appealed to the SC. Court relists it 12 times then GVR's it.

They screw around too much, there's always a Writ of Mandamus.

 

[treelogger]

... or flat out ignores the ruling like they've done with Bruen.

California ignored Bruen? Pardon me? Where do you think all these CCW permits that are being issued in the last few years come from?

 

[HibikiR]

LA County did bury applications under the excuse of "modernization delays" and had to be sued in order to comply with Bruen. Taking 3+ years to transition from paper to online applications is complete BS.

LA County Sheriff settles lawsuit over delays in concealed carry permits

While the tentative deal resolves one lawsuit over the long time it takes to receive a concealed carry permit in LA County, it doesn't address a more recent case brought by the U.S. Justice Department over the same delays.

www.courthousenews.com

According to Justice Department’s lawsuit, the LA County Sheriff’s Department received 3,982 new applications for concealed carry permits, as opposed to renewal requests, between January 2024 and March 2025, from which only two permits were issued.

Applicants have to wait an average of 281 days — over nine months — just for the sheriff to begin processing their applications, with some waiting as long as 1,030 days, or nearly three years, the Justice Department said.

 

[northbay shooter]

My fear is that they hold Ducan for these AWB cases. They issue a narrow opinion on AWB cases in our favor and then GVR Duncan back to the 9th. We win, and the state appeals, we win again, and the State En Banc's, again. We lose and then go back to the SC and wait. All of this takes another 2-3 years. I don't think anything changes unless we get a pro 2A AG in CA.

 

[LarpAnonymous]

Yes.
That's the cases they accepted, but it's not CA's AWB.
After the SCOTUS says that AWB's are unconstitutional, THEN we can sue to have the CA AWB nullified.
That will take a few more years as the 9th circuit will no-doubt find a way to justify calling CA's version of the AWB legal because it's not the specific AWB that SCOTUS said was unconstitutional.

I dont get it.

If SCOTUS rules "assault weapons" are constitutionally protected including their features, how would that not IMMEDIATLY nullify CA's AWB? Why would we have to sue the state again, or wait for Miller? We already know the law is unconstitutional per SCOTUS and the lower courts have had their decision made for them per SCOTUS?

Am I missing something?

 

[shroom]

California ignored Bruen? Pardon me? Where do you think all these CCW permits that are being issued in the last few years come from?

Well look at Duncan. Case was gvr'd and the 9ca issued a ruling which was word for word as their previous one in places. And blatantly did things Bruen said not to do like interest balance.

 

[RickD427]

I dont get it.

If SCOTUS rules "assault weapons" are constitutionally protected including their features, how would that not IMMEDIATLY nullify CA's AWB? Why would we have to sue the state again, or wait for Miller? We already know the law is unconstitutional per SCOTUS and the lower courts have had their decision made for them per SCOTUS?

Am I missing something?

You're missing something. Folks that are not parties to a lawsuit are not directly affected by the outcome. If the Supreme Court holds that a sate statute is unconstitutional. Only that state statute is directly affected.

But there are a number of indirect affects on similar statutes in other states:

1) Prosecuting authorities will generally decline to file criminal charges for the violation of similar stautues.

2) Affected parties can sue to overturn similar statutes and use the force of the Supreme Court decision in their pleadings.

3) Responsible legislative bodies will act to bring their state statutes in alignment with the decision.

 

[LarpAnonymous]

You're missing something. Folks that are not parties to a lawsuit are not directly affected by the outcome. If the Supreme Court holds that a sate statute is unconstitutional. Only that state statute is directly affected.

But there are a number of indirect affects on similar statutes in other states:

1) Prosecuting authorities will generally decline to file criminal charges for the violation of similar stautues.

2) Affected parties can sue to overturn similar statutes and use the force of the Supreme Court decision in their pleadings.

3) Responsible legislative bodies will act to bring their state statutes in alignment with the decision.

Interesting!

Thank you for the info!