NRA-ILA | Supplemental Brief Filed in NRA-Supported Duncan v. Bonta Highlights Circuit Split Created by NRA’s Victory in ANJRPC v. Attorney General of New Jersey

The Petitioners in Duncan v. Bonta, an NRA-supported challenge to California’s ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds, have filed a Supplemental Brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review and resolve a circuit split created by the NRA’s victory in Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney General of New Jersey. The NRA has been fighting to protect the rights of California gun owners in this case for nearly a decade, and this Supplemental Brief marks the latest step in that ongoing effort.

The Supplemental Brief brings to the Court’s attention the Third Circuit’s en banc decision in Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc., which held that New Jersey’s ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds violates the Second Amendment. The en banc Third Circuit’s decision expressly rejected the en banc Ninth Circuit’s contrary conclusion in Duncan, creating an acknowledged circuit split over whether commonly owned magazines are protected “arms” under the Second Amendment.

The Duncan petitioners argue that this disagreement between the Ninth and Third Circuits warrants Supreme Court review. The Ninth Circuit upheld California’s magazine ban, concluding that magazines holding more than ten rounds fall outside the Second Amendment’s protection. In contrast, the Third Circuit held that magazines—including those capable of holding more than ten rounds—are “arms” protected by the constitutional text and that, because such magazines are commonly used by law-abiding citizens, they cannot be banned consistent with the Second Amendment.

The Supplemental Brief explains that the Third Circuit’s en banc ruling further confirms the need for the Supreme Court to resolve the issue. As explained in the brief, millions of law-abiding citizens across multiple states remain subject to magazine bans that prohibit possession of commonly owned magazines, even though those same magazines are protected in other jurisdictions.

The brief also notes that the Supreme Court has already granted review in cases challenging bans on AR-15-style rifles, and argues that the Court should consider the magazine-ban issue alongside those cases to provide clarity on the scope of Second Amendment protections for commonly used arms and their components.

The Supreme Court relisted Duncan more than 20 times before holding the case over the summer. The Petitioners hope that the newly established circuit split will prompt the Court to grant certiorari and resolve the conflict over whether commonly owned magazines are protected by the Second Amendment.

Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org for future updates on NRA-ILA’s ongoing efforts to defend your constitutional rights, and please visit www.nraila.org/litigation to keep up to date on NRA-ILA’s ongoing litigation efforts.