Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court docket will formally take into account whether or not to grant certiorari in Duncan v. Bonta, a case that might reshape how courts deal with bans on frequent firearm equipment like large-capacity magazines below the Second Modification.
The case, lengthy simmering within the federal courts, challenges California’s ban on possession of magazines able to holding greater than ten rounds—so-called “large-capacity magazines.” Initially filed in 2017, Duncan has traveled a winding path by the courts and already represents probably the most vital Second Modification disputes in years.
Background: California’s Journal Ban & the Problem
California enacted its journal ban in 2016 by Senate Invoice 1446 and voter-approved Proposition 63, banning possession of magazines that may settle for greater than ten rounds. The regulation turned efficient July 1, 2017.
Gun homeowners, led by plaintiffs together with Virginia Duncan and the California Rifle & Pistol Affiliation, challenged the regulation below the Second Modification, asserting that magazines in frequent use for lawful functions are protected “arms” and that the ban is unconstitutional. The criticism additionally raises Fifth Modification takings considerations over state confiscation of lawfully owned property.
After procedural back-and-forth, together with a remand following the Supreme Court docket’s Bruen choice on Second Modification methodology, an en banc Ninth Circuit panel upheld the journal ban, concluding that California’s regulation suits inside historic traditions of regulation.
What the Supreme Court docket Will Think about
Tomorrow, the excessive courtroom will meet in convention to resolve whether or not to listen to the petition (step one earlier than setting briefing schedules or oral argument). Merely granting cert would sign that the Court docket is able to overview, within the coming months, whether or not:
A ban on possession of generally owned ammunition feeding units violates the Second Modification, and
Forcibly dispossessing lawful homeowners of magazines with out compensation violates the Takings Clause.
If the Court docket grants overview, this may very well be the primary main check of Bruen in a post-Bruen journal case—pitting historic custom evaluation towards fashionable firearms expertise and rights.
Why This Issues to Gun House owners
For hundreds of thousands of People, so-called “large-capacity” magazines aren’t unique equipment — they’re customary gear. The most typical defensive handguns and rifles bought on this nation ship from the manufacturing unit with magazines that maintain greater than ten rounds.
Gun homeowners use these magazines day-after-day for lawful functions: dwelling protection, hid carry, coaching lessons, competitors, and vary time. In defensive conditions, no person will get to select what number of threats they’ll face or what number of rounds it would take to cease one. Limiting law-abiding residents to an arbitrary quantity — particularly when criminals ignore legal guidelines altogether — punishes harmless folks.
This case isn’t about novelty {hardware}. It’s about whether or not the federal government can ban an merchandise that’s undeniably in frequent use throughout the nation. Beneath Heller and strengthened in Bruen, arms “in frequent use” for lawful functions are purported to be protected. That’s why Duncan issues far past California. If the state can prohibit probably the most generally owned firearm elements in America, what stops the subsequent restriction?
Stay Stock Worth Checker
What’s Subsequent on the Court docket
If the Supreme Court docket denies the petition, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling stands and the ban stays constitutional in that circuit. However a grant would set the stage for Supreme Court docket briefing and probably argument later this Time period or subsequent. Both end result could have main ripple results:
Gun homeowners nationwide will watch whether or not frequent equipment like magazines fall below strong constitutional safety.
Decrease courts throughout the nation could grapple with conflicting circuits on journal bans and different post-Bruen Second Modification checks.
In February 2026, the docket of Second Modification circumstances is already crowded with high-profile petitions and grants—Duncan might quickly be a part of Hemani and different circumstances shaping the way forward for gun rights jurisprudence.
Keep Tuned
AmmoLand will proceed its in-depth protection because the Supreme Court docket acts on the Duncan v. Bonta petition and, if granted, as briefing and argument unfold. This is likely one of the most consequential Second Modification fights in years—keep knowledgeable at AmmoLand.com.
Trump-Appointed Choose Colleges ninth Circuit on Firearms in Viral VIDEO Dissent
Dissent in Ninth Circuit Journal Ban Exhibits Rogue Judges Ignore Structure
