The California-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that magazines aren’t essential parts of guns and therefore not protected by the Second Amendment, was just systematically taken apart by a dissenting judge -- but the way he did it has triggered his leftist colleagues.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke, named to the federal bench by Donald Trump 45, created a video showing how the Duncan v Bonta decision limiting magazine capacity to ten bullets was not only unconstitutional but illogical.
The judge writing the majority opinion called the video “wildly improper,” but it’s fabulous and shows the seven-person, anti-gun majority for what they are: fatuous and unthinking black-robed droids.
His video, linked to his written dissent, shows the be-robed Reno-based judge stripping down two guns--a Sig Sauer P-320 for self-defense, and another handgun he uses for shooting competitions. He stands in front of his credenza, over which a decommissioned AK-47 hangs as an art piece.
Judge VanDyke not only took the guns apart, he summarily took apart the arguments of his seven colleagues, who, he reckoned, lacked “the basic familiarity with firearms to understand the inherent shortcomings and obvious inadmissibility of the test that California was proposing.”
Related: California's 'Scorched Earth' War on Gun Rights Presses On Despite Court Smackdown
That was one of my favorite lines from the judge’s 18-minute video; it is a great demonstration of calling someone stupid without name-calling.
His colleagues seemed to get the message, however.
The bald justice on the left, says it all you need to know about the 9th circuit. pic.twitter.com/lcpP9XNx32
— Greg 🚀 (@greg_blaire) March 20, 2025
The judge writing the majority opinion didn’t like him showboating like this, but we do. She claimed that he was, in essence, acting as a fact witness in the case, which, when you’re fact-challenged, as the gun grabbers were, can be worrisome. VanDyke, however, anticipated the complaint, saying:
As an appellate body, it's obviously not our role to make factual determinations. So I share this not to supplement the factual record that we're using to decide this case. Instead, I share this because a rudimentary understanding of how guns are made, sold, used and commonly modified makes obvious why California's proposed tests and the one my colleagues are adopting today simply does not work.”
While taking apart the guns, Judge VanDyke showed that all parts of guns can be switched out—even the shooting mechanism— and therefore all parts are accessories. Under that logic, all handgun parts--even revolvers, in his opinion--could be outlawed because parts are “accessories” just like magazines.
“California's argument which the majority's adopted here,” he explained, “is that a magazine that holds more than 10-rounds is not an arm protected by the Second Amendment, so this 21-round magazine that comes from the factory, or a 17-round magazine is not an arm protected by the Second Amendment.”
He continued with the illogic of the California law limiting gun users to ten bullets per magazine.
Now California acknowledges that a magazine is necessary to make the firearm function but they argue that because you can replace the standard magazine with one that holds fewer rounds 10 rounds or less than these higher capacity magazines are not an arm and thus wholly unprotected by the Second Amendment.
[T]he problem with California's argument is that as I pointed out at oral argument the exact same argument would apply to essentially every part on this firearm which would mean that essentially nothing on this firearm would be protected by the Second Amendment.
We suspect that is part of the lawfare plan.
Related: West Coast, Messed Coast™: The Left's Unconstitutional Assault on Guns
Before you write this judge off as just some hick who likes to shoot guns with the good old boys, be forewarned: VanDyke graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. His bio also states he was a double major in engineering and theology and holds a master's degree in engineering management. Oh, and he clerked for conservative heavyweight Judge Janice Rogers Brown on the D.C. Circuit.
This case is going to the Supreme Court and should be red-carded immediately, especially when California’s attorney general, Rob Bonta, has to explain why the device containing more than ten bullets that makes guns go bang bang isn’t covered under the Second Amendment. I’d like to be in the courtroom for oral arguments just to watch Clarence Thomas’s face reacting to this nuttery.
Help PJ Media continue to tell the truth about the Trump administration's accomplishments as we continue to usher in the Golden Era of America. Join PJ Media VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member