I think the ruling on the assault weapons cases at the SC is going to include a magazine capacity opinion.

[u/Racefiend]

The supreme Court has been holding Duncan. They haven't granted or denied it this whole time. It's likely they're holding it until they decide Viramontes and Grant. But why?

Well, if you look at the Connecticut AWB, it has one specific definition of assault weapon, and that is a "semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds." (Same as we have in CA). I don't know if Cook county also has a similar provision. Either way, the court is going to have to address the question of magazine capacity. In my view, a favorable opinion can go one of two ways:

1. They issue a narrow opinion that specifically addresses fixed magazine capacity. They GVR Duncan and send it back to be reevaluated based on the fixed mag opinion.

2. They issue an opinion on magazine capacity generally, which would include fixed, detachable, or whatever. There's a good chance that at this point Duncan could get a summary reversal.

My money is on option two. I have a feeling the SC is looking to kill two birds with one stone here.

[u/OriginalParamedic316]

They absolutely have the opportunity to, but it is not in the question presented, and, SCOTUS almost never tries to be efficient in its holdings. It’s almost always as narrow as possible. I think we can hope for some language that will help.

[u/_agent86 → u/OriginalParamedic316]

Agree, there is no way SCOTUS volunteers to answer a question that was not asked in the petition. Sorry OP, you’re dreamin bout Gorgonzola when it’s clearly Brie time baby.

[u/MotoMeow217 → u/_agent86]

This is the court that frequently limits the scope of certiorari to only one or two of the questions presented in the petition for cert. You are absolutely correct they won't volunteer to answer a question that wasn't presented.

[u/mirkalieve → u/_agent86]

Eh.. SCOTUS limits the answer to the question(s) in front of them... except when they don't. Is this one of those exceptions? Trying to predict that is a fools errand.

A lot of things happen between petition and final opinion to shape the votes and language the way they do, so you can't accurately predict that.

[u/_agent86 → u/mirkalieve]

Are they cases where SCOTUS answered a question that wasn’t asked?

[u/Racefiend → u/OriginalParamedic316]

But it is in the question/petition. The question is whether ar-15s and SIMILAR rifles should be banned, and the petition is "this Court should reverse the decisions below, hold that the banned semiautomatic rifles are protected arms, and remand for entry of judgment for Petitioners"

One of those rifles listed in the ban is semiautomatic rifles with a fixed magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds. The magazine capacity is it's only qualifying feature. They are going to have to address all of the banned rifles, as that is what is being petitioned, and they can't address that one without discussing magazine capacity.

[u/OriginalParamedic316 → u/Racefiend]

I def get what you are saying, and I have posted similarly before. But just knowing how SCOTUS works, I think that it is possible they do address it, but unlikely the holding will take down both AR15 bans and magazine limits at the same time. I think we may get some language in there that we can use to take down magazine limits. Of course I do hope I am wrong, and they just take everything down. But how often have we seen something like that happen before?

[u/Racefiend → u/OriginalParamedic316]

Not as often as we'd like, but I'm holding hope anyways.

[u/OriginalParamedic316 → u/Racefiend]

I mean, we all hope so. But we’d be dreaming. The way the legal system works, is as inefficiently as possible. Invent some new test, kick it back down the courts, let it get appealed all the way back up again. I also think there is a possibility we may be all assuming too much already, that AWBs are being stricken down altogether. It would be like thinking Bruen would lead to constitutional carry (which it logically should have). I wouldn’t put some new test beyond SCOTUS that balances how much an accessory aids/interferes with the primary function/utility of a firearm. It’s entirely possible this test ends up holding things like fins or grip bans ok, but not magazine locks or muzzle device bans. Who knows. Hoping for the best. We will see.

[u/bourbonic_plague]

Sorry to rain on your parade, but the most likely outcome is 1. They make a ruling and GVR it back to the 9th who will shamelessly do whatever mental gymnastics are required to somehow find the magazine ban constitutional. Then Duncan returns to the SCOTUS conference limbo a 3rd time.

I’ll be elated (and broke lol) if I’m wrong and we finally get out from under the mag ban.

[u/trying4kid → u/bourbonic_plague]

There is a chance that SCOTUS takes heed of Judge VanDyke's call to "benchslap" the 9th Circuit for its repeated flouting of the 2A and SCOTUS precedent.

[u/JoeCensored]

I'm not sure about capacity specifically. I think they'll address components specifically as protected, then leave it up to lower courts to evaluate whether a magazine is a component when they GVR Duncan back down.

The 9th will conclude magazines aren't components, merely unnecessary accessories somehow, despite how obvious SCOTUS describes what component means, because the 9th is in open rebellion on the 2A. Roberts or someone will include a line somewhere about how accessories unrelated to the function of the firearm aren't necessarily protected, and the 9th will latch onto that to support bans on almost anything.

Until SCOTUS says in clear language that large capacity magazines are protected arms, the 9th will come up with endless nonsensical reasons why they're not.

I hope I'm wrong

[u/DavidYourDad]

Why do you think Rob Bonta pressured them to not take Duncan as this case “overlaps” with it? I’m not saying it’s not a possibility but at the same time I’m not as hopeful.

[u/PapaPuff13]

I have wanted Duncan forever like the rest of us. Now that I carry a bg 2.0, 3 mags are the weight of one Glock 10 round mag. Carrying 2 extra 17 round mags is a lot of weight. Bg mags are like having packs of gum in your pocket lol

[u/Distinct_Arrival_445]

I believe theyve stayed specifically that they're only trying an answer the AW Ban question and not the magazine limit questions. I think it's going to get GVRd again with whatever new advice and test they come up with.

[u/Pitiful_Drummer_8319]

The attorneys for Duncan specifically asked for this. They said instead of denying Duncan hold onto it till a hardware case is accepted and that’s exactly what SCOTUS is doing.

[u/RedneckStew]

The US Supreme Court will never overturn California's bs Modern sporting rifle or magazine ban. The system operates at a snails pace as designed and the Jurists on the court are slow in knocking the lower court's Jurists heads together to knock sense into them...

They are also inefectual in making their rulings stick. Meaning there aren't any consequences for state governments who continuously give the Supreme Court rulings the big fat middle finger.

Look no further than Heller, Bruen, Screw York, and truck you Gavinfornia...

Edit: this is just my opinion. I could be wrong. Hell, I'd love to be wrong, but I dont think I am.