Duncan v. Bonta: Supreme Court Faces Crucial Test on 2nd Amendment

California’s long-running ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds is back at the Supreme Court’s doorstep – and this time, the stakes may be national.

In a new update, William, host of Copper Jacket TV, explains that Duncan v. Bonta has completed an important step: California has finally filed its brief in opposition to the petition asking the Court to hear the case. In plain English, the state just told the justices why they shouldn’t take it.

William’s read? The opposition is thin, the timing is late, and the urgency for review is obvious.

I agree. Here’s why this moment matters – and what could come next.

A Case That Refuses to Die

As William reminds viewers, Duncan has been grinding through courts for nearly a decade. The challenge began by targeting California’s law that outlaws “large-capacity” magazines (anything over 10 rounds) and requires owners to surrender, modify, or otherwise dispose of them.

Round one: U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez (often mispronounced, but the same judge everyone calls “Saint Benitez” in 2A circles) ruled the ban unconstitutional.

Round two: A Ninth Circuit panel affirmed Benitez. Then the Ninth Circuit took it en banc and reversed, blessing the ban using interest-balancing that later ran head-on into New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

After Bruen (2022), the Supreme Court vacated and remanded Duncan, telling the Ninth to try again under text-and-history instead of balancing. 

The case ping-ponged back to Judge Benitez, who again struck the ban. And the Ninth Circuit… again rescued the law.

This is where William’s frustration shows: California’s ban survives not because it aligns with Bruen, but because the Ninth has continually found ways to avoid Bruen’s plain directive.

What’s New: California’s “Don’t Take This Case” Pitch

According to William, California’s brand-new brief in opposition boils down to this: the Supreme Court has recently denied other petitions over similar magazine laws (he points to Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, Hanson v. D.C., and Harrel v. Raoul). So, the state argues, why rock the boat by taking Duncan now?

William calls the argument laughable, and he’s got a point.

Those prior denials were procedural and preliminary in posture. Duncan, by contrast, arrives after final judgment, with a complete record and a nearly ten-year saga that showcases every doctrinal contortion the Ninth can muster. That’s a different posture – and it matters.

California adds that other appellate courts (the Third and Seventh Circuits) are still working through their own magazine cases and the Supreme Court should wait. 

But as William notes, waiting is the point for states that benefit from prolonged status quo. Delay keeps bans intact while standards shift – and while owners twist in the wind.

Why Duncan Is the Clean Vehicle the Court Needs

William highlights how many state attorneys general and 2A organizations have piled on with amicus briefs urging the Supreme Court to take Duncan. That’s because this case squarely tees up the core Bruen question:

Do magazines integral to the common operation of modern semi-automatic firearms fall within the Second Amendment’s protection – and, if so, can states ban them outright?

Under Bruen, the analysis starts with text, then looks to history. The text question is straightforward: are modern magazines “arms” or integral components in common use for lawful purposes? 

If yes, Bruen says the government must show a historical analogue for banning them. Not regulating carry in sensitive places. Not imposing training or licensing. Banning possession.

California’s post-Bruen trick has been to claim these magazines do not implicate the Second Amendment at all because they’re not protected “arms.” 

As William recounts, the Ninth Circuit has leaned into that move, treating capacity as an unprotected accessory rather than a component that defines how a lawful, ubiquitous firearm functions.

That approach, in my view, flips Bruen on its head. If half or more of the nation’s commonly owned handguns and rifles ship with magazines over 10 rounds, those magazines are textually and functionally part of the protected arm. Treating them as optional “extras” is linguistic gymnastics.

The National Stakes: It’s Bigger Than California

William is right about the ripple effect. If the Supreme Court takes Duncan and rules that magazine bans violate the Second Amendment, that would put every 10-round limit in jeopardy nationwide. We’re talking California, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Oregon, and others that have copied the same playbook.

On the flip side, if the Court declines to take Duncan, California’s law stands – and other states can read that as a green light to lock in their bans, confident the Ninth, Second, and Seventh Circuits will keep them on life support through re-branded interest balancing.

William also points out the real-world human cost. Because California’s regime doesn’t just forbid new purchases – it criminalizes existing owners who don’t surrender or permanently alter property they bought legally. That’s not regulation at the margins; that’s forced dispossession with Takings Clause implications the petition also raises.

California’s Two Main Tactics – and Why They Fall Short

Reading California’s opposition the way William does, you can spot two moves:

1) “The Court already denied similar cases.”

True in a hyper-technical sense, but misleading. The Court often waits for a clean vehicle with final judgment and a robust record before stepping into a national controversy. Duncan is that vehicle.

2) “Let the lower courts keep working.”

Translation: let the circuits most inclined to uphold bans issue a fresh batch of opinions so the Supreme Court can point to “ongoing developments” and duck yet again. That may be strategically clever. It’s not a principled reason to deny review when a fundamental right is at stake and people are facing criminal liability for possessing widely owned components of common arms.

With the opposition now filed, William says the justices can schedule a conference to decide whether to grant or deny review. Practically, that means Duncan could be conferenced within weeks, with an order list to follow.

If the Court grants the case, briefing on the merits begins, oral argument would likely be set later this term or early next, and a definitive ruling could come down by late spring or early summer.

If the Court denies, don’t expect the Ninth to let go of the ban anytime soon. The state’s blueprint for evading Bruen will live on – and other states will borrow it.

The Court Should Grant – and Clarify Bruen

William’s bottom line is clear: take the case. I’m with him.

The justices don’t need to reinvent the wheel. They can apply Bruen faithfully:

• Text: Magazines are integral to commonly owned semi-automatic firearms used for lawful purposes. The conduct is covered.
• History: There is no well-established historical tradition of banning standard components of commonly owned arms. Regulation of misuse? Sure. Possession bans of widespread arms or their essential parts? No.

And if the Court wants to address the Takings Clause as well, this is an apt vehicle. When government compels owners to surrender or destroy personal property that is lawful in most of the nation, that’s a classic takings question – not merely a safety regulation at the margins.

The Ninth Circuit’s move to declare these magazines outside the Second Amendment’s text isn’t just a disagreement over policy. It’s a fault line in how courts read Bruen. 

Leaving that split to fester invites more creative drafting from states and more rights whittled by semantics.

William puts it plainly: people need relief, and the Court needs to lead. After nearly ten years, Duncan has the record, the posture, and the national implications that warrant Supreme Court review.

If the justices want to show that Bruen is not a suggestion but a standard, this is the case to say so – clearly, decisively, and in a way that lower courts can’t ignore.

California has made its pitch to punt. The Court shouldn’t.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.