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.
I think that the USSC is holding off on Duncan until they resolve Viramontes.So this will affect the Duncan v Bonta case as well?
The direct impact being pled is in the brief:So this will affect the Duncan v Bonta case as well?
The Second Amendment protects a functioning Arm, not merely an object that resembles one.
That principal has immediate consequences for not just Viramontes and Grant, but also Duncan v. Bonta, where the Ninth Circuit has held that standard-capacity magazines are mere “accessories” or “accoutrements” unrelated to the protected arm. If AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles are protected, the magazines they are designed to use cannot be constitutionally severed from them. The question is not whether a magazine, considered in isolation, independently qualifies as an “Arm.” It is whether the government may prohibit an ordinary means of possessing and using an Arm that the Second Amendment protects.
Hope for the former but expect the latter...Now the question is will they per curiam Duncan or GVR it.
You probably won’t hear anything more about this until after the scotus issues the Viramontes ruling in June 2027Any updates on this case today from SCOTUS?