NRA Asks Supreme Court to Settle Mag Ban Battle Once and For All

On August 15, 2025, the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) announced it had filed a Petition for Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of Duncan v. Bonta. This case challenges California’s sweeping ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. Backed by the California Rifle & Pistol Association as well, the NRA declared the time had come for the nation’s highest court to weigh in once and for all.

A Law Decades in the Making

According to the NRA-ILA, California’s restrictions stretch back to 2000, when the state outlawed the manufacture, import, and sale of so-called “large-capacity magazines.” In 2016, lawmakers went even further, banning mere possession and requiring citizens to surrender, destroy, or permanently modify their property. The Duncan lawsuit was filed before that possession ban took effect, alleging violations of both the Second Amendment and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Millions of Magazines Already in Circulation

NRA Executive Vice President Doug Hamlin stressed the broad scope of the ban. “Tens of millions of Americans lawfully own hundreds of millions of the magazines that California bans,” he said in the NRA’s release. These devices are not fringe equipment – they are standard components of countless firearms used for lawful purposes. Hamlin argued the Supreme Court must take the case “to vindicate the rights of Californians and reaffirm that the Second Amendment prohibits the government from banning common arms.”

Ninth Circuit Upholds the Ban

The legal journey has been long and contentious. Earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, upheld the law in a 7–4 ruling. The majority characterized magazines as mere “accessories,” not “arms” protected by the Second Amendment. On the takings issue, the court leaned on prior precedent to rule that Californians had not suffered an unconstitutional seizure, despite being forced to give up lawfully acquired property. The NRA-ILA flatly rejected this reasoning, calling it a clear departure from established Supreme Court precedent in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Langley Outdoors Academy Reacts

Gun rights commentator Braden Langley of Langley Outdoors Academy covered the breaking news in his video, calling it a “phoenix moment” for the NRA. “We’ve been waiting on this one for 10 years,” Langley said, referring to the Duncan case’s decade-long journey. He emphasized that if the Court accepts review, it will have profound consequences not only for California but for every state with magazine restrictions. “You get this thing to go away, you’ve got New York’s SAFE Act, you’ve got California – anywhere there’s a magazine ban, you’ve got a problem,” Langley explained.

The “Common Use” Argument

Both the NRA-ILA and Langley leaned heavily on the concept of “common use,” central to Heller and reaffirmed in Bruen. The standard holds that arms widely possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes cannot be banned. Langley highlighted the sheer scale: more AR-15s exist in America than Ford F-150 trucks, and each rifle typically comes with multiple magazines exceeding ten rounds. “That’s pretty common use,” he argued. If the Court recognizes magazines as integral components of firearms rather than disposable accessories, the constitutional logic becomes hard to ignore.

The Takings Clause at Issue

The Fifth Amendment dimension adds another layer. As the NRA-ILA petition emphasized, forcing gun owners to surrender or destroy their magazines without compensation constitutes a classic physical taking. Langley dismissed California’s counterargument as “transparent and stupid,” noting that the state cannot sidestep constitutional property protections simply by labeling magazines as nonessential. The petition insists that the Court must resolve this conflict, since lower courts have offered wildly inconsistent rulings on takings claims tied to firearm regulations.

Why the Case Is Ripe for Review

NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford made the case bluntly: “After nearly a decade of litigation, two en banc decisions, and a prior remand from the Supreme Court, this case is more than ready for the Court’s review.” He argued that Californians have “endured long enough,” and the time has come to restore their constitutional rights. The NRA’s filing emphasizes not only the prolonged litigation but also the confusion left behind by conflicting circuit decisions on similar laws nationwide.

Why This Matters Beyond California

From my perspective, what makes this case fascinating is that it could finally unify the law on magazine bans across the country. Right now, gun owners in one state may have access to magazines considered illegal just across a border. That patchwork is untenable, and the Supreme Court will eventually have to settle it. If the Court rules that magazines are constitutionally protected arms, the decision could unravel similar bans in New Jersey, New York, Maryland, and beyond.

A Test for the Court’s Commitment

Another reason this case is compelling is that it will test the Supreme Court’s own commitment to its precedents. Both Heller and Bruen rejected the idea that “common arms” can be outlawed simply because they are politically controversial. If the Court declines to take Duncan, critics will say it is dodging its responsibility to enforce its own rulings. If it accepts, it must clarify whether magazines fall under the Second Amendment’s protection.

Langley’s Take on the Bigger Picture

Langley also stressed that this case connects directly to other looming legal battles, including challenges to so-called “assault weapon” bans. “It’s all going to hinge on that common use argument,” he said. He framed the Duncan petition as the natural bridge between Heller, Bruen, and a possible third landmark decision. “How about we make this Heller-Bruen-Duncan? That’d be a great little trio right there.”

Why the Ninth Circuit’s Logic Rings Hollow

The Ninth Circuit’s reasoning – that magazines are accessories, not arms – strikes many as flimsy. As the NRA-ILA pointed out, magazines are essential to the operation of most modern semi-automatic firearms. To call them accessories is like saying fuel tanks aren’t part of cars. Without them, the firearm is not functional. This distinction, if upheld, could undermine the core of the Second Amendment by allowing governments to outlaw essential components under the guise of regulating accessories.

A Decisive Moment

After years of back-and-forth, the Supreme Court now faces a clear opportunity to end the uncertainty. The NRA’s petition, backed by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, seeks not only relief for Californians but also a nationwide reaffirmation of Second Amendment protections. As Langley put it, “This is the lynchpin.” Whether the Court takes the case or not will reveal how seriously it intends to enforce its own precedents and protect the rights of millions of law-abiding Americans.