After nearly a decade of legal battles, the most consequential Second Amendment lawsuit in recent memory is one step away from the nation’s highest court. In Duncan v. Bonta, plaintiffs are now preparing to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity magazines” (LCMs) – defined by the state as those holding more than ten rounds. With years of legal back-and-forth, a sharply divided Ninth Circuit decision, and escalating national scrutiny, the stage is set for a landmark ruling.
A Long Legal Road to the Supreme Court
As Chuck Michel of CRPA explained in a recent episode of CRPA TV, the Duncan v. Bonta lawsuit was filed all the way back in 2017 to challenge California’s Proposition 63. That voter-approved law banned not just the sale, but also the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.
Judge Roger T. Benitez originally ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the ban unconstitutional. But after multiple appeals, remands, and re-hearings, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, reversed that ruling on March 20, 2025. As Michel noted, this is the second time the full 11-judge panel has ruled against the plaintiffs, by a 7–4 vote. “This case has already been to the Supreme Court once,” Michel said, referencing the Bruen-era remand. “Now we’re going back.”
Ninth Circuit Majority Upholds the Ban
The majority opinion from the Ninth Circuit offered two primary arguments. First, the court declared that large-capacity magazines are not “arms” under the Second Amendment, nor are they protected accessories. Second, even if such magazines were covered, the court claimed California’s law fits within a historical tradition of regulating dangerous weapons.
In its March 2025 ruling, the court stated plainly: “The text of the Second Amendment does not encompass the right to possess large-capacity magazines.” Furthermore, it argued that even if LCMs were assumed to fall under the Second Amendment’s umbrella, the ban would still be justified by historical analogues regulating the dangerous use of firearms.
This reasoning is now central to the Supreme Court appeal. As Chuck Michel explained, “They’ve used this accessories loophole to justify a lot of things, but if you can say a magazine isn’t integral to the firearm, then you can say almost anything isn’t.” It’s a slippery slope that gun rights advocates believe must be addressed.
A Dissent That Shook the Judiciary
Four judges dissented from the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, and their critiques have become a rallying cry for Second Amendment defenders. Judge Lawrence VanDyke went so far as to include a video demonstration in his written dissent – a highly unusual move that showed him disassembling handguns and explaining the interdependence of parts, including magazines.
VanDyke’s central argument was clear: distinguishing between “arms” and “accessories” is an arbitrary and dangerous legal tactic. As summarized in the Federalist Society’s opinion roundup, VanDyke warned that “an ‘arm’ is a broad term covering an almost limitless variety of configurations.” If courts can exclude components as “unnecessary accessories,” then any part – barrels, bolts, even triggers – could be deemed unprotected.
Critics of VanDyke, like Judge Berzon, accused him of turning his dissent into an “unauthorized expert witness statement,” but VanDyke stood firm. His conceptual point was simple: if a gun needs a magazine to function, that magazine is part of the arm – and therefore protected.
The False Distinction Between 10 and 11 Rounds
One of the most heavily criticized aspects of the Ninth Circuit ruling is the artificial line drawn at ten rounds. In his CRPA TV interview, Chuck Michel emphasized this absurdity: “So if it’s a 10-round magazine, it’s essential. But if it’s an 11-round magazine, suddenly it’s just an accessory?”
Michel’s point is powerful. The line is not grounded in the mechanics of firearms or historical precedent – it’s simply a political line drawn by lawmakers, then retroactively justified by courts. That sort of rationalization is exactly what the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision was meant to curtail.
How Bruen Is Being Twisted
In 2022, the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen changed the landscape of Second Amendment law by establishing a text-and-tradition standard. Yet, according to the Federalist Society and the Duncan dissenters, the Ninth Circuit’s majority opinion in Duncan v. Bonta misapplies that very standard.
Judge Bumatay, joined by Judges Ikuta, Nelson, and VanDyke, argued in their dissent that there are no relevant historical analogues to support California’s magazine ban. Instead, they said, the first real magazine capacity laws emerged in the 20th century – far too late to be considered “historical tradition” under the Bruen framework.
Their conclusion: “California’s law is unconstitutional.”
Possession and the Takings Clause
Another important element in Duncan v. Bonta is the question of whether California’s law constitutes an illegal seizure of private property. As Chuck Michel reminded viewers, Proposition 63 not only banned the sale of new magazines, but also made possession of existing magazines a criminal act.
This has led some to argue that the law violates the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. After all, millions of magazines were legally acquired during “Freedom Week” in 2019 when the law was temporarily struck down. Should the Supreme Court uphold the ban, every one of those lawfully owned items could suddenly be illegal.
That’s not just a Second Amendment problem – it’s a property rights problem.
A Fully Baked Case, Ready for SCOTUS
In the words of Chuck Michel, Duncan v. Bonta is “a fully baked cake.” Unlike preliminary injunction cases such as Ocean State Tactical, Duncan has gone through years of litigation, with two full trials, multiple appellate reviews, and a final judgment on the record.
“That’s what the Supreme Court is looking for,” Michel said. “They want something they can rule on without having to ask for more facts or remands.”
If SCOTUS is looking for a strong Second Amendment case to clarify how lower courts should apply Bruen, Duncan appears to check every box.
The Waiting Game Begins
With the Ninth Circuit issuing a partial stay on its own ruling, Californians can still legally possess their previously acquired magazines, at least for now. The Supreme Court has 90 days to decide whether to take up the case, though that deadline can be extended.
Kevin Small of CRPA TV expressed the shared frustration among gun owners: “When you’re pretty sure you’re going to win in the end, the waiting ends up being the worst part.”
Still, Chuck Michel remained optimistic, noting the legal team is “preparing the petition for certiorari now,” and believes the chances of the Supreme Court taking the case are strong.
The High Stakes of Inaction
If the Supreme Court declines to take Duncan v. Bonta, the Ninth Circuit ruling will stand. This would mean that all magazines holding more than 10 rounds – including those acquired legally before 2017 and during Freedom Week – would become illegal to possess.
That outcome could criminalize millions of gun owners overnight.
And as Chuck Michel warned, it wouldn’t stop there: “If they can call a magazine an accessory, what’s to stop them from calling a grip, a scope, or even a trigger an accessory? Where does it end?”
A Moment of Truth for Gun Rights
The Duncan case presents a defining moment for the Second Amendment in the post-Bruen world. The Supreme Court has already told lower courts to use a history-and-tradition test. Now, the question is whether they’re willing to enforce that directive – or let the Ninth Circuit’s “accessory” loophole become the new normal.
If you support the right to keep and bear arms, Duncan v. Bonta is a case worth watching – and supporting. As Michel concluded, “We are going to win… but there is resistance. There’s a blue-state resistance, a judicial resistance, and it’s going to take everything we’ve got to push through it.”
The next chapter belongs to the Supreme Court. Let’s hope they’re ready.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.