The Fight Over High-Capacity Magazines Could Be Headed to the Supreme Court

The long-running legal battle over California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity” ammunition magazines has reached yet another critical juncture – this time, with the potential to land before the United States Supreme Court. On March 20, 2025, a sharply divided en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California’s magazine ban in the case of Duncan v. Bonta, overturning the ruling of U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez and igniting a firestorm of commentary, dissent, and speculation across the legal landscape.

California’s law prohibits the possession of magazines holding more than ten rounds – a law initially enacted through Senate Bill 1446 in 2016 and reinforced by Proposition 63, which added criminal penalties for possession. According to the court’s majority opinion, written by Judge Susan Graber, these magazines are “optional accessories” and therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.

The Ninth Circuit Majority: Magazines Are Not “Arms”

The majority of the Ninth Circuit, in a 7–4 decision, held that large-capacity magazines (LCMs) fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Their reasoning was twofold: first, the court argued that magazines do not constitute “arms” as protected by the amendment. Second, even if they were considered arms or essential components, the court said California’s law still fits within the country’s tradition of regulating particularly dangerous weaponry.

“Large-capacity magazines are optional accessories to firearms, and firearms operate as intended without a large-capacity magazine,” Judge Graber wrote, as quoted in reporting by The Reload’s Jake Fogleman. “Accordingly, the Second Amendment’s plain text does not encompass a right to possess large-capacity magazines.”

Judicial Dissent: A Warning Against Judicial Overreach

Not everyone on the bench agreed. In fact, three separate dissenting opinions painted a drastically different picture. Judge Patrick Bumatay, joined by Judges Ikuta, Nelson, and VanDyke, accused the majority of misapplying the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework and distorting both constitutional text and historical understanding.

In Bumatay’s words, as noted in Fogleman’s article, “The majority has taken at least three positions on how California’s novel ban should be upheld… its implications are vast and lead to a dangerous expansion of government power.” His dissent framed the majority’s interpretation as both ideologically motivated and untethered from the constitutional standard.

A Judge Speaks Through Video—and Sparks Controversy

In a rare and provocative move, Judge Lawrence VanDyke recorded an 18-minute video as part of his dissent, using firearms and components to demonstrate the importance of magazines to the operation of modern handguns. The video has become a focal point of debate, criticized by the majority for introducing “material outside the record.”

Still, VanDyke’s message, detailed in both the Ninth Circuit’s published opinion and in analysis by attorney Tom Grieve, struck a nerve. He argued that if a 10-round magazine is considered acceptable, why not five rounds – or even one? By that logic, VanDyke reasoned, a holster, a red dot sight, or even iron sights could also be deemed “non-essential” and banned arbitrarily. His central point was that accessories can be integral to function, usability, and self-defense effectiveness – criteria that should matter under the Second Amendment.

Gun Rights Experts Say This Could Be the One

Gun rights attorney Tom Grieve, in his recent video breakdown, called Duncan v. Bonta one of the two cases most likely to define the legal standing of magazine capacity in America. “This is the case,” Grieve emphasized, “that could go to the United States Supreme Court to decide what is the definition of an arm.”

Grieve mocked the majority’s position by imagining absurd hypothetical bans: “Could California just ban all holsters and say, ‘Just raw-dog it – stick it down your pants and hope for the best’?” he asked rhetorically. His analysis underscored how far-reaching the majority’s logic could become if applied beyond magazines.

CRPA and Chuck Michel: This Is the Case SCOTUS Needs

On CRPA TV, California Rifle & Pistol Association President Chuck Michel expressed firm confidence that the case is heading to the Supreme Court. Joined by host Kevin Small, Michel said the Duncan decision presents a perfect vehicle for the high court to “set the record straight” and rein in the Ninth Circuit’s pattern of disregarding Supreme Court precedent.

“The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to emphatically set the record straight,” Michel said. He pointed out that Duncan has a fully developed factual record and the correct procedural posture, something previous cases have lacked. In his view, SCOTUS intervention is not only likely but necessary to restore constitutional clarity.

Interest Balancing Returns—Against Supreme Court Instructions

Judge Bumatay’s dissent, as highlighted in the CRPA TV breakdown, accused the majority of resurrecting interest-balancing – a method explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court in both Heller and Bruen. Bumatay titled his dissent “The Return of Interest Balancing” and accused the majority of using historical analogues as mere camouflage for subjective policy preferences.

Kevin Small echoed this concern, pointing out that the court “cloaks interest balancing under the guise of tradition,” thereby ignoring the Bruen test’s requirement that restrictions align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.

A Procedural Saga Years in the Making

The Duncan case has been circulating through federal courts since 2017. Judge Roger Benitez struck down the ban twice as unconstitutional. At one point, his ruling led to a short-lived buying frenzy dubbed “Freedom Week,” during which Californians legally purchased high-capacity magazines. But the Ninth Circuit repeatedly stayed those decisions while appeals worked their way up.

This latest ruling marks the second time the en banc Ninth Circuit has sided with the state. The first time, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the decision after issuing its landmark Bruen ruling. Critics, like Grieve and Michel, argue that the Ninth Circuit is now openly defying Bruen and daring the Supreme Court to act.

California Officials Celebrate—But Critics Call It Hollow

California Attorney General Rob Bonta praised the ruling as a major win for public safety, stating, “Let me be clear, this law saves lives.” But opponents argue that this rationale uses a broad brush, punishing law-abiding citizens for the acts of criminals while doing little to curb actual violence.

Grieve pointed out that millions – possibly billions – of so-called “large capacity” magazines exist in circulation across the country. “They’re not high capacity,” he said, “they’re just magazines. It’s the 10-rounders that are the anomaly.”

Could This Be the Supreme Court’s Next Second Amendment Blockbuster?

Given the stakes, widespread dissent, and blatant circuit court defiance of Bruen, all sources agree: the Duncan case is ripe for Supreme Court review. As Michel emphasized on CRPA TV, the Court is looking for a case that will allow it to clearly establish the boundaries of the Second Amendment post-Bruen. With a final ruling from a lower court, a full factual record, and national implications, Duncan checks every box.

“This is part of history,” Michel said. “It’s going to be studied a century from now.”

The Stakes Are Massive

If the Supreme Court takes Duncan v. Bonta, its decision could either entrench or erase magazine bans across the country. More importantly, it could resolve the ever-widening rift between how some lower courts interpret Bruen and how the Supreme Court intended it to be applied. Judge VanDyke’s dissent, Grieve’s analysis, and Michel’s predictions all point to the same truth: this case isn’t just about magazines. It’s about what the Second Amendment really protects – and whether that protection means anything when it comes under political pressure.

Whether SCOTUS takes the case or not, the legal battle over magazines is a proxy war over a broader constitutional principle. And as the fight escalates, all eyes are now firmly set on the Supreme Court steps.