A Trump-appointed judge is taking a stand against California’s radical gun control laws, but his creative approach has liberal colleagues up in arms. Will his video demonstration exposing the flawed logic behind magazine bans finally force the Supreme Court to protect Second Amendment rights?
At a glance:
• The 9th Circuit Court upheld California’s magazine capacity ban in a 7-4 decision
• Trump-appointed Judge Lawrence VanDyke created a video dissent demonstrating how magazines are integral parts of firearms
• The majority ruled magazines are not “arms” protected by the Second Amendment
• Liberal judges criticized VanDyke’s video as “improper” and outside procedural norms
• The case is likely headed to the Supreme Court for final resolution
Trump Judge Fights Back With Hands-On Demonstration
The liberal-dominated 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has once again attacked Second Amendment rights by upholding California’s ban on standard capacity magazines. Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a Trump appointee with a Harvard Law background, responded with an unprecedented video dissent that exposed the majority’s fundamental misunderstanding of firearms.
In a 7-4 ruling that broke along ideological lines, the court determined that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are not protected “arms” under the Second Amendment. The decision, written by Clinton appointee Susan Graber, effectively gave anti-gun states a roadmap to ban firearms piece by piece.
VanDyke’s detailed video demonstration showed how magazines are integral components of modern firearms, not mere “accessories” as claimed by the liberal majority. In his dissent video, he meticulously dismantled a handgun to illustrate how California’s rationale could be extended to ban virtually every removable part of a firearm.
Liberal Judges “Triggered” By Gun Knowledge
The liberal judges on the 9th Circuit appeared more concerned with VanDyke’s methods than with addressing his substantive arguments about constitutional rights. U.S. Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon, a Clinton appointee, lashed out at VanDyke’s approach in her concurring opinion.
“Judge VanDyke’s dissent improperly relies on factual material that is unquestionably outside the record. His source for these beyond the record facts? A video that he recorded, in his own chambers, showing him handling several different handguns and explaining his understanding of their mechanics and operation,” Berzon complained.
The Harvard-educated VanDyke, who graduated magna cum laude and clerked for Judge Janice Rogers Brown, clearly has the required expertise to analyze the technical aspects of firearms. His credentials are in stark contrast to the majority judges who seemed unfamiliar with basic gun mechanics while simultaneously making sweeping decisions affecting constitutional rights.
Critics have pointed out that the majority’s lack of firearms knowledge led to a deeply flawed ruling that could effectively nullify Second Amendment protections. By declaring magazines as unprotected “accessories,” the court opened the door for states to ban firearms by restricting individual components.
Supreme Court Showdown Likely
Legal experts believe this case is destined for the Supreme Court, which has recently strengthened Second Amendment protections in decisions like Bruen v. New York.
Second Amendment advocates are hopeful that the Supreme Court will overturn the 9th Circuit’s decision, as it has done repeatedly with other overreaching rulings from the notoriously liberal court. Legal experts say that California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta will struggle to defend the law before justices who have consistently confirmed that the Second Amendment protects commonly-owned firearms and their standard components.
