Major Development Could End Mag Bans Across America

According to William, host of Copper Jacket TV, the Supreme Court’s new term (kicking off October 6) is already stacked with consequential gun-rights petitions. Alongside a challenge to Illinois’ semi-auto bans (which he refers to as Vermont’s v. Cook County), he notes two major magazine-capacity cases seeking review: one from Washington (State of Washington v. Gator’s Custom Guns) and the long-running California fight, Duncan v. Bonta. William’s core message is simple: if the justices grant review and decide Duncan on the merits, the ruling could effectively end magazine bans nationwide.

Duncan v. Bonta: The Long Road Back to Washington

William walks viewers through the procedural saga. Duncan is no newcomer; it’s been litigated for roughly eight years. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez twice ruled California’s 10-round limit unconstitutional. Each time, the Ninth Circuit stepped in and sided with the state. After the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision reoriented Second Amendment analysis around text and history, the justices sent Duncan back down; Benitez again struck the law; the Ninth Circuit again said no; and now Duncan is back at the Supreme Court with a fully developed record. As William frames it, that completeness makes Duncan a clean vehicle for the Court to finally answer the “mag ban” question.

What William Says Is Different This Time

William emphasizes that support for Supreme Court review has exploded since Duncan’s latest petition was filed in mid-August. In his telling, nearly every major pro-2A organization piled on with amicus briefs: Gun Owners of America and its affiliates, the Heller Foundation, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearms Owners, Tennessee Firearms Association and Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League and Foundation, America’s Future, the U.S. Constitutional Rights Legal Defense Fund, and the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, among others. 

He also spotlights briefs from groups outside the usual lane – like the African American Gun Association, Asian Pacific Gun Owners Association, the DC Project Foundation, Operation Blazing Sword, Gabriella Franco, the Liberal Gun Club, and more – alongside industry and litigation mainstays such as NAGR, NSSF, the Second Amendment Foundation, the Second Amendment Law Center, and the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus. To William, that breadth signals a unified push the Court can’t easily ignore.

Why Magazine Bans Are on the Line, Not Just California’s

As William frames it, the legal question is straightforward under Bruen: magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “arms in common use for lawful purposes” – integral components of modern semi-automatic firearms – and therefore protected by the Second Amendment’s text. If they are protected, he argues, blanket bans must fail because there is no founding-era historical analogue for prohibiting widely owned arms or their essential components. In his view, a merits decision affirming that logic wouldn’t just resolve Duncan; it would pull the rug out from under similar bans in multiple states.

The Ninth Circuit vs. Benitez – A Years-Long Ping-Pong

William’s frustration with the Ninth Circuit is palpable. He recounts how Benitez’s detailed opinions – twice concluding California’s law is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment – were twice stayed or reversed by the Ninth. That back-and-forth, he suggests, has become emblematic of a larger circuit-level resistance to Bruen. He pointedly calls on the Supreme Court to step in and “set the record straight” because, as he puts it, lower courts have “abused their power to push their own personal agendas for long enough.”

A Wave of Amicus Briefs William Calls “Unprecedented”

Beyond advocacy groups, William highlights what he considers the real inflection point: state-level support. He notes that the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) spearheads the case – but this time, the cavalry arrived. He says the amicus docket is “more than I’ve ever seen before,” which, in Supreme Court politics, matters. While amicus briefs don’t decide outcomes, they help the justices (and their clerks) gauge national stakes, build out historical analysis, and assess practical impacts. In a term where the Court has been selective – sometimes maddeningly so for both sides – William believes this unified chorus can move the needle on certiorari.

27 State Attorneys General Tell SCOTUS: Take Duncan

William underscores a striking coalition: 27 state attorneys general – from Montana, Idaho, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming – plus the Arizona Legislature urged the justices to grant review and rule for Duncan. As he quotes their brief, the right “includes the right to possess and use essential components of modern arms like >10 magazines.” That many states throwing their weight behind a California case signals that the consequences won’t stay in California – and the Court knows it.

The Legal Question William Wants Answered Once and for All

What William wants from the justices is a crisp holding that aligns with Bruen: if magazines over 10 rounds are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, they are protected “arms,” and categorical bans are unconstitutional – full stop. He argues a merits decision on those terms would not only resolve Duncan but also dissolve litigation gridlock across circuits on both magazine caps and the broader “are components arms?” debate.

Why Certiorari Is the Whole Ballgame

William is candid about the elephant in the room: the Supreme Court’s reluctance to take gun cases. He reminds viewers the Court declined to review two earlier petitions this year (he refers to them as Snope and Ocean State). That’s why the amicus blast matters; it gives the Court political cover and jurisprudential ammunition to act. If the justices pass again, William warns, states with caps will take the denial as a green light – and lower courts will interpret it as permission to keep narrowing Bruen.

What Happens If SCOTUS Says No

William puts a sharp point on the stakes for Californians: if cert is denied, tens or hundreds of thousands of residents could see previously lawful magazines re-criminalized overnight. He adds that he knows many owners who simply won’t comply – a scenario that would worsen mistrust and fuel more litigation. Beyond California, a denial would telegraph to other states that capacity limits remain a viable policy lever, inviting more bans and more lawsuits that circle for years.

If the Court Says Yes: Potential Nationwide Ripple Effects

If the Court takes Duncan and affirms Benitez, the ripple effects would be immediate. Magazine bans in other states would become legally untenable; ongoing cases would be redirected or mooted; and the “components as arms” principle would harden. William also hints at a broader strategic payoff: a merits opinion that faithfully applies Bruen would curb what he calls “unconstitutional shenanigans” in the lower courts – reducing the ping-pong of enjoin, stay, reverse, remand that has left gun owners and state officials equally whiplashed.

Momentum, Math, and the Limits of Patience

William’s bottom line is optimistic but impatient. With CRPA at the tip of the spear, nearly every major 2A group filing, and over half the country’s attorneys general urging review, he believes the pressure is finally high enough to force action. I’ll add this: Duncan gives the Court exactly what it often claims to want – a fully developed record, clean legal issues, and massive national stakes. Whether you favor or oppose capacity caps, certainty beats endless whiplash. If the justices truly meant what they said in Bruen, Duncan is the place to prove it.