By AmmoLand Editor Duncan Johnson Ammoland
Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will formally consider whether to grant certiorari in Duncan v. Bonta, a case that could reshape how courts treat bans on common firearm accessories like large-capacity magazines under the Second Amendment.
The case, long simmering in the federal courts, challenges California’s ban on possession of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds — so-called “large-capacity magazines.” Originally filed in 2017, Duncan has traveled a winding path through the courts and already represents one of the most significant Second Amendment disputes in years.
Background: California’s Magazine Ban & the Challenge
California enacted its magazine ban in 2016 through Senate Bill 1446 and voter-approved Proposition 63, banning possession of magazines that can accept more than ten rounds. The law became effective July 1, 2017.
Gun owners, led by plaintiffs including Virginia Duncan and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, challenged the law under the Second Amendment, asserting that magazines in common use for lawful purposes are protected “arms” and that the ban is unconstitutional. The complaint also raises Fifth Amendment takings concerns over state confiscation of lawfully owned property.
After procedural back-and-forth, including a remand following the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision on Second Amendment methodology, an en banc Ninth Circuit panel upheld the magazine ban, concluding that California’s law fits within historical traditions of regulation.
What the Supreme Court Will Consider
Tomorrow, the high court will meet in conference to decide whether to hear the petition (the first step before setting briefing schedules or oral argument). Simply granting cert would signal that the Court is ready to review, in the coming months, whether:
- A ban on possession of commonly owned ammunition feeding devices violates the Second Amendment, and
- Forcibly dispossessing lawful owners of magazines without compensation violates the Takings Clause.
If the Court grants review, this could be the first major test of Bruen in a post-Bruen magazine case — pitting historic tradition analysis against modern firearms technology and rights.
Why This Matters to Gun Owners
For millions of Americans, so-called “large-capacity” magazines aren’t exotic accessories — they’re standard equipment. The most common defensive handguns and rifles sold in this country ship from the factory with magazines that hold more than ten rounds.
Gun owners use these magazines every day for lawful purposes: home defense, concealed carry, training classes, competition, and range time. In defensive situations, nobody gets to pick how many threats they’ll face or how many rounds it will take to stop one. Limiting law-abiding citizens to an arbitrary number — especially when criminals ignore laws altogether — punishes innocent people.
This case isn’t about novelty hardware. It’s about whether the government can ban an item that is undeniably in common use across the country. Under Heller and reinforced in Bruen, arms “in common use” for lawful purposes are supposed to be protected. That’s why Duncan matters far beyond California. If the state can prohibit one of the most commonly owned firearm components in America, what stops the next restriction?
What’s Next at the Court
If the Supreme Court denies the petition, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling stands, and the ban remains constitutional in that circuit. But a grant would set the stage for a Supreme Court briefing and potentially argument later this Term or next. Either outcome will have major ripple effects:
- Gun owners nationwide will watch whether common accessories like magazines fall under robust constitutional protection.
- Lower courts across the country may grapple with conflicting circuits on magazine bans and other post-Bruen Second Amendment tests.
In February 2026, the docket of Second Amendment cases is already crowded with high-profile petitions and grants — Duncan could soon join Hemani and other cases shaping the future of gun rights jurisprudence.
Find this article on Ammoland.
READ NEXT: The Case Before The Supreme Court — And The Athlete Who Makes It Real
