In a move that’s impressed many in the legal and gun rights communities, Judge Lawrence VanDyke of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals released a first-of-its-kind video dissent dismantling his colleagues’ flawed reasoning in the Duncan v. Bonta ruling — a case upholding California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity” magazines.
The 18-minute video, posted on the official Ninth Circuit YouTube channel, shows VanDyke in his judicial robe, calmly walking viewers through the basic mechanics of common firearms and the central role that magazines — including those holding more than 10 rounds — play in modern semi-automatic weapons.
The Case ~ Duncan v. Bonta
Duncan v. Bonta involved California’s controversial law banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The law, passed in 2016 and reinforced by Proposition 63, criminalizes the possession of such magazines, even if they were lawfully acquired before the ban.
In a 7-4 decision, the en banc Ninth Circuit upheld the law, claiming that magazines are “accessories”—not “arms” protected by the Second Amendment. In writing for the majority, Judge Susan Graber argued that the law aligns with historical regulations and is designed to prevent “especially dangerous uses” of firearms.
But VanDyke wasn’t buying it.
A Powerful, No-Nonsense Response
VanDyke, a Trump appointee, dropped the legal equivalent of a red pill in his dissent, not just in writing — but on camera.
“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 — simply does not work,” VanDyke said.
To prove his point, he disassembled and demonstrated a Sig Sauer P320 — one of the most common handguns in America — showing how each part, including the magazine, is essential to the firearm’s function.
If California can argue that a magazine isn’t constitutionally protected just because you could swap it out for a neutered 10-rounder, VanDyke pointed out, then any part of a firearm could be declared “unprotected.” He applied the same logic to grips, iron sights, takedown levers, and even the fire control unit — the heart of a modern pistol.
His message was clear: under the majority’s reasoning, the entire firearm could be chopped up into “optional accessories” and banned piece by piece — including, eventually, the semi-automatic action itself.
Live Inventory Price Checker
Majority Judges Cry Foul
The reaction from VanDyke’s liberal colleagues was swift — and bitter. Six of the seven judges in the majority slammed the video as “wildly improper,” on liberal news rag sites accusing VanDyke of acting as an “expert witness” in the case rather than a judge.
But VanDyke was prepared for that criticism. “It’s obviously much more effective to simply show you,” he said in the video, adding that the guns used were rendered inoperable for safety and that he wasn’t making new factual findings, just demonstrating common knowledge.
Gun Owners Say “It’s About Time”
Second Amendment advocates applauded VanDyke’s bold move.
“This is exactly what we’ve needed — someone on the bench who isn’t afraid to call out ignorance when it comes to guns,” said one online comenoter. “The majority tried to claim that magazines are accessories. That’s like saying a gas tank is an accessory to a car.”
Legal analysts believe the Ninth Circuit’s decision — and the weak reasoning behind it — sets the stage for the Supreme Court to step in, especially in the wake of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which made clear that modern gun restrictions must align with the historical tradition of firearm regulation.
A Legal Turning Point?
VanDyke’s dissent isn’t just about one case — it’s a warning shot to courts and lawmakers who try to sidestep the Constitution by redefining what counts as an “arm.”
“This video wasn’t just a dissent. It was a lesson,” said another gun rights attorney who watched the video. “He didn’t just tell them they were wrong — he showed them.”
In a court where judges have previously claimed ignorance on how firearms operate, VanDyke may have just changed the game — bringing truth, clarity, and a bit of grit back into the conversation about the right to keep and bear arms.
And while anti-gun voices rage about “improper procedure,” millions of law-abiding Americans watching the video are likely thinking the same thing:
Finally, a judge who gets it.
Outrageous: Judge VanDyke Calls Out 9th Circuit’s Devious Maneuvers Against 2nd Amendment ~ VIDEO
