Within the realm of Second Modification litigation, few circumstances have captured as a lot consideration and endured as lengthy a journey as Duncan v. Bonta. This problem to California’s prohibition on standard-capacity magazines, outlined as these holding greater than 10 rounds, has ping-ponged by way of the federal courts for practically a decade. As of February 2026, the case sits in limbo on the U.S. Supreme Courtroom, repeatedly relisted for convention with no determination on whether or not to grant evaluate. This sample of delays underscores the justices’ cautious method to post-Bruen gun rights circumstances, probably signaling deeper divisions or strategic timing inside the Courtroom.
The origins of Duncan v. Bonta hint again to 2016, when California voters permitted Proposition 63, which banned the possession of what the state known as large-capacity magazines (LCMs).
The regulation was constructed on earlier restrictions that prohibited the manufacture and sale of such magazines, however allowed current homeowners to maintain them. Prop 63 went additional, requiring homeowners to give up, promote out of state, or destroy their LCMs, with felony penalties for non-compliance. Proponents argued that LCMs facilitate mass shootings by enabling sustained hearth with out reloading. Opponents, together with the California Rifle & Pistol Affiliation (CRPA) and particular person plaintiffs like Virginia Duncan, contended that the ban infringes on the Second Modification proper to bear arms for self-defense, as LCMs are generally utilized in handguns and rifles for lawful functions.
The litigation started in 2017 within the U.S. District Courtroom for the Southern District of California. Choose Roger Benitez, a George W. Bush appointee identified for his pro-Second Modification rulings, struck down the ban in 2019, calling it an unconstitutional burden on law-abiding residents. He emphasised that thousands and thousands of LCMs are in circulation nationwide, estimates recommend over 100 million, and that they’re “arms” protected below the Second Modification. A 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Courtroom of Appeals affirmed this determination in 2020, however the full en banc courtroom reversed in 2021, upholding the ban below the then-prevailing “intermediate scrutiny” check. The en banc majority reasoned that the regulation superior public security with out unduly limiting core Second Modification rights.
This back-and-forth may need ended there, however the Supreme Courtroom’s 2022 landmark determination in New York State Rifle & Pistol Affiliation v. Bruen reshaped the panorama. In Bruen, the Courtroom rejected tiered scrutiny in favor of a history-and-tradition check: gun rules should be according to the nation’s historic custom of firearm regulation to cross constitutional muster. Shortly after, the justices vacated the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Duncan and remanded the case for reconsideration below the brand new framework.
Stay Stock Worth Checker
On remand, Choose Benitez once more invalidated the ban in September 2023, discovering no historic analogue for prohibiting generally owned magazines. He issued a everlasting injunction, permitting Californians to own LCMs freely throughout the enchantment. The Ninth Circuit panel once more affirmed, however the en banc courtroom intervened once more in March 2025, reversing the district courtroom in a sharply divided 15-12 opinion. The bulk held that LCMs aren’t “arms” however mere equipment, and even when they had been, California’s ban aligns with historic rules on harmful weapons like Bowie knives or multi-shot firearms from the founding period. Dissenters, together with Judges Patrick Bumatay and Lawrence VanDyke, lambasted the choice as defying Bruen. Choose VanDyke, in a very scathing opinion delivered partly by way of video, accused the vast majority of recycling pre-Bruen reasoning below a historic guise.
With the en banc ruling in place, the plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Courtroom for certiorari in August 2025. The petition poses two questions: whether or not banning possession of widespread ammunition-feeding gadgets violates the Second Modification, and whether or not legal guidelines requiring divestment of lawfully acquired property represent a constitutional taking. California Lawyer Common Rob Bonta responded, defending the ban as according to historical past. Amicus briefs poured in, together with from 27 state attorneys common supporting the petitioners.
The case’s path on the Supreme Courtroom has been marked by uncommon delay. Initially distributed for the November 21, 2025, convention, it was rescheduled after which redistributed for December 5, December 12, January 9, January 16, January 23, and most lately, February 20, 2026. As of February 23, 2026, no determination has been introduced following the February 20 convention, suggesting one other relist could also be forthcoming. The fixed relisting signifies sustained curiosity with out decision.
Relisting, a apply by which a case is redistributed for a subsequent convention with out motion, is just not unusual however typically indicators that the justices are intently contemplating it. In accordance with authorized specialists, relists can happen for numerous causes: drafting a abstract reversal, making ready a dissent from denial of cert, or awaiting developments in associated circumstances. In Duncan’s case, the repeated relists could replicate inside debate over the right way to apply Bruen after the Courtroom’s 2024 determination in United States v. Rahimi, which upheld a federal gun ban for home abusers and clarified that rules needn’t be an identical to historic ones however analogous.
The Courtroom might also be eyeing Duncan alongside related challenges. Petitions in circumstances like Viramontes v. Prepare dinner County (Illinois assault weapons ban) and Nationwide Affiliation for Gun Rights v. Lamont (Connecticut LCM restrictions) are pending, some relisted as properly. Analysts speculate the justices are selecting the right “automobile” to handle journal bans broadly, given their prevalence in states like New York, New Jersey, and Washington. The delay may stem from strategic timing; with the 2025-26 time period’s argument calendar practically full, granting cert now would possibly push arguments to the subsequent time period.
These relists have real-world implications. The district courtroom’s injunction stays in impact, staying enforcement of California’s ban. Gun homeowners within the state can nonetheless possess LCMs, however uncertainty looms. If the Courtroom denies cert, the ban may snap into place, forcing thousands and thousands to conform or face penalties. A grant may result in one other main Second Modification ruling, probably invalidating related legal guidelines nationwide and affirming that LCMs are protected “arms.” Critics of the ban argue it disproportionately impacts law-abiding residents, as criminals ignore such legal guidelines.
The extended relisting echoes different high-profile circumstances, like abortion or election disputes, the place the Courtroom treads rigorously amid political sensitivity. The conservative majority, having expanded gun rights in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, could also be weighing how far to increase protections. Dissenters like Justices Sotomayor and Kagan have criticized Bruen for unleashing chaos in decrease courts.
As Duncan v. Bonta lingers, it exemplifies the Supreme Courtroom’s deliberate tempo on contentious points. Whether or not the relists portend a grant, denial, or one thing else stays unclear.
Supreme Courtroom Shake-Up? Alito Exit Might Hand Trump Essential 2A Appointment
Duncan v. Bonta: Supreme Courtroom Poised to Determine the Way forward for Gun Rights
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA teacher and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed individuals from all walks of life, and on the Structure. John lives in Northern Virginia along with his spouse and sons, observe him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
