Feature and accessory bans are among the clearest examples of incrementalism in modern gun policy. Rarely do sweeping prohibitions arrive all at once. Instead, restrictions accumulate piece by piece, one feature, one component, one regulation at a time, until the practical exercise of the right to keep and bear arms is substantially burdened.
In states like California, this pattern is especially visible. So-called feature bans do not target misuse. They target design characteristics that are largely cosmetic or ergonomic. The result is not improved public safety but a steady narrowing of what law-abiding citizens are permitted to own.Supporters frame these measures as science-based safety reforms. Critics argue they are policy preferences dressed in technical language, restrictions that function less as crime control and more as friction imposed on a disfavored right.
At the heart of the debate is a philosophical divide. One view holds that rights are political constructs, subject to revision by legislative majorities. The other holds that rights are natural, pre-political and inherent, and that government’s role is to protect them, not redefine them.
If rights are merely permissions granted by the state, then they can be adjusted whenever political winds shift. If they are natural rights, then they place firm boundaries on government power, even when majorities disagree.Those who hold the natural-rights view argue that the Second Amendment protects arms in common use suitable for contemporary defense, not relics of a prior era and not tools artificially stripped of ordinary components. They contend that preserving liberty requires more than parchment guarantees. It requires a citizenry capable of exercising the rights the Constitution recognizes.
The disagreement, ultimately, is not about accessories. It is about whether constitutional rights are enduring restraints on government or evolving privileges subject to political negotiation.
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.
By Duncan Johnson
