Duncan v Bonta Still Going

Interesting brief by the plaintiff.

INTRODUCTION

Bruen’s embrace of the text-and-history test provides clear guideposts for how the constitutionality of these types of bans must now be assessed. In short, there is zero historical support from the Founding—or even the Reconstruction era—for banning commonly possessed arms; under the Bruen test, that is the end of the matter.

 
That should indeed be the end of the matter. But California refuses to respect the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, and rages against the confines of Bruen’s text-and-history test. The State knows there are no “well-established and representative analogues” for banning magazines that are commonly owned by millions of Americans for lawful purposes, including self-defense, hunting, target shooting, and competition
shooting. Certainly, historical predecessors to modern firearms equipped with magazines able to hold more than ten rounds did exist. What did not exist is a longstanding American tradition of banning them. Regular Americans could—and did—lawfully own these weapons in the 19th century.

And it keeps getting better from there!