World
India
US Judge VanDyke Unusual Dissent: In a significant ruling on Thursday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California’s law banning gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 7-4 decision reaffirmed the state’s right to regulate firearms, stating that such magazines are not considered “arms” or “protected accessories” under the Second Amendment.
The majority opinion further argued that even if these magazines were protected, California’s ban aligns with the nation’s historical tradition of regulating firearms to protect public safety. “This law falls within the Nation’s tradition of protecting innocent persons by prohibiting especially dangerous uses of weapons and by regulating components necessary to the firing of a firearm,” the ruling stated.
Unconventional Video Dissent by Judge VanDyke
Judge Lawrence VanDyke dissented in an unusual manner—by including a link to a YouTube video in which he demonstrates loading and handling firearms inside his chambers.
“This is the first video like this that I’ve ever made,” VanDyke said in the footage. “I share this because a rudimentary understanding of how guns are made, sold, used, and commonly modified makes obvious why California’s proposed test and the one my colleagues are adopting today simply does not work.”
In the video, VanDyke showcases various firearms, loading them to demonstrate their functionality. He also highlights high-capacity magazines, arguing that they are no different from other firearm accessories that enhance a gun’s capabilities. According to him, the majority’s logic could permit the government to selectively ban any firearm component it deems too dangerous.
BREAKING
Judge VanDyke posts video dissenting from unconstitutional 9th Circuit decision while disassembling guns with an AK mounted in his chambers. pic.twitter.com/4bfRd3hIdP
— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) March 20, 2025
Criticism of Judge VanDyke
Judge Marsha S. Berzon, in a separate opinion, criticized VanDyke’s use of video evidence, arguing that he was introducing “facts outside the record.” She contended that by doing so, he was effectively appointing himself as an expert witness in the case rather than strictly adhering to judicial interpretation.
California’s law has remained in effect despite a 2023 ruling by a district court judge in San Diego that deemed it unconstitutional. The ongoing legal challenge was brought forth by four individuals and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, who argued that the restriction violates the Second Amendment.
The majority of the appellate court judges, however, ruled that their decision aligns with a 2022 Supreme Court ruling, which established a new standard prioritizing historical tradition in gun regulation over modern public safety concerns.
California Attorney General Applauds Ruling
California Attorney General Rob Bonta welcomed the court’s decision, emphasizing its role in preventing mass shootings.
“This commonsense restriction on how many rounds a gunman can fire before they must pause to reload has been identified as a critical intervention to limit a lone shooter’s capacity to turn shootings into mass casualty attacks,” Bonta stated. “Let me be clear, this law saves lives.”
