The Case That Could Force SCOTUS To Clarify the Second Amendment Finally

Washington Gun Law President William Kirk has once again turned attention to Duncan v. Bonta, the long-running challenge to California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity” magazines. As Kirk reminded his viewers, this case has been circling through the courts for years – long before his own channel even existed. Now, petitioners have taken the extraordinary step of asking the Supreme Court for review a third time, highlighting what Kirk described as a direct challenge to the Court’s willingness to uphold its own precedent.

Petitioners Call Out SCOTUS Directly

According to Kirk, the latest petition in Duncan v. Bonta doesn’t just make legal arguments – it openly calls on the Supreme Court to “do its job.” The California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), representing Virginia Duncan and other plaintiffs, argues that the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly ignored binding precedent from Heller and Bruen. In their brief, petitioners essentially demand to know whether the Court has the backbone to enforce its own rulings. Kirk stressed that this tone is unusual, but entirely justified given how many times the Ninth Circuit has twisted doctrine to uphold the magazine ban.

The Ninth Circuit’s Judicial Games

Kirk walked through what he sees as the Ninth Circuit’s ongoing “mutiny” against the Supreme Court. At the trial level, Judge Roger Benitez repeatedly struck down California’s ban, finding that magazines over 10 rounds are both in common use and constitutionally protected. But as Kirk explained, the Ninth Circuit used procedural tricks, such as skipping normal three-judge panel review and pulling in senior judges for en banc hearings, to reverse Benitez and preserve California’s restrictions. “It’s like a Hoover vacuum,” Kirk said, describing how the Ninth Circuit has sucked the case away from every fair ruling.

The Disappearing Balancing Test

Before Bruen, appellate courts used a two-step “balancing test” that weighed Second Amendment protections against what they called public safety interests. Kirk pointed out that the Supreme Court in Bruen explicitly rejected that approach, demanding instead that courts look to the plain text of the Constitution and historical tradition. Yet, the Ninth Circuit sidestepped this requirement by declaring that magazines might not even be “arms” covered by the Second Amendment. Kirk called this logic absurd, given that “tens of millions of law-abiding Americans lawfully own hundreds of millions” of magazines over 10 rounds.

A Split Among the Circuits

Kirk emphasized that the split isn’t limited to the Ninth Circuit. Other courts, including the Fourth and Seventh Circuits, have also ruled that magazines fall outside the scope of Second Amendment protection. Meanwhile, other circuits have reached the opposite conclusion. This patchwork of rulings has left Americans with radically different rights depending on where they live. For Kirk, this kind of circuit split is exactly what should compel the Supreme Court to step in and resolve the issue once and for all.

The Fifth Amendment Angle

One of the unique aspects of California’s ban, Kirk noted, is that it goes beyond restricting future sales – it bans possession outright. Unlike states such as Washington, which allow previously owned magazines to remain grandfathered, California requires citizens to surrender or destroy their lawfully purchased property. This, Kirk argued, raises serious Fifth Amendment takings issues. When the government seizes private property, the Constitution requires compensation. In his words, “if you owned 50 magazines yesterday and today they’re illegal, those items just became worthless. Where is the compensation?”

Two Rights Violated, Not Just One

According to the petition, California’s law is doubly unconstitutional: it violates both the Second Amendment by banning arms in common use, and the Fifth Amendment by confiscating property without just compensation. Kirk highlighted that this dual-violation argument gives the Supreme Court an even stronger reason to take up the case. Unlike the Second Amendment, where courts have muddied the waters with endless balancing tests, the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause is clearer and harder for judges to manipulate.

A Court Playing Keep-Away

Kirk expressed frustration that the Supreme Court has had multiple opportunities to resolve the magazine ban issue but has repeatedly declined. He pointed out that the Court could have accepted Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island or Snoke v. Brown, but chose not to. Each time, gun owners are left in limbo while hostile lower courts chip away at Second Amendment rights. For Kirk, Duncan v. Bonta has “aged beyond fine wine” and is long overdue for final resolution.

Why This Case Matters Nationally

Although Duncan began as a California-only dispute, Kirk warned that its implications are nationwide. Multiple states have passed their own magazine bans, and each one cites California’s law as precedent. If the Supreme Court continues to dodge the issue, other courts will follow the Ninth Circuit’s example and uphold similar restrictions. That means millions of Americans are living under what Kirk described as a “watered-down version” of the Second Amendment, with rights varying wildly by geography.

California Rifle and Pistol Association’s Role

Kirk gave credit to the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) for staying in the fight from day one. He described the CRPA as one of the most battle-tested gun rights organizations in the country, precisely because California provides such a constant stream of legal challenges. He urged gun owners in the state to support CRPA, saying their persistence has kept this case alive long enough to potentially reach the Supreme Court.

The Court’s Credibility Is on the Line

Watching this case unfold, I can’t help but agree with Kirk: the Supreme Court’s credibility is at stake. If the Court says in Heller that arms in common use cannot be banned, and then says in Bruen that balancing tests are impermissible, but refuses to enforce those principles, then the Second Amendment risks becoming meaningless. The justices can’t keep sidestepping magazine ban cases while lower courts openly defy them. At some point, silence becomes complicity.

A Chance to Settle the Chaos

In my view, Duncan v. Bonta is the perfect case to settle the chaos. It has a long record, a clear circuit split, and even a Fifth Amendment property rights issue layered on top of the Second Amendment question. The justices often talk about letting issues “percolate” before review, but as Kirk said, this one has “percolated well beyond fine wine.” The time for waiting has passed. The Court needs to either enforce its own rulings or admit it is unwilling to defend the Second Amendment.

Will SCOTUS Step Up?

William Kirk of Washington Gun Law made it clear: Duncan v. Bonta isn’t just another gun case – it’s a test of whether the Supreme Court is willing to enforce the Second Amendment consistently across the country. The Ninth Circuit has, in his words, staged a mutiny against binding precedent, and millions of Americans are paying the price. Whether the justices take up the case may determine not only the future of magazine bans, but the integrity of the Court itself.