Judge Lawrence VanDyke didn’t just write a dissenting opinion in the case of Duncan v. Bonta – he filmed one. In a move that stunned legal experts, gun rights advocates, and critics alike, VanDyke released an 18-minute in-chambers video explaining why California’s ban on magazines over 10 rounds is not only illogical but completely detached from how firearms actually work.
In his own words, VanDyke said he wanted to “show rather than tell,” arguing that courtroom debates often miss the practical, mechanical truth of firearms. His video was a rare glimpse into a judge taking a stand not just on legal theory, but on real-world understanding.
Breaking Down the California Argument
At the heart of the case is California’s claim that magazines holding over 10 rounds are “accessories,” not “arms,” and therefore aren’t protected under the Second Amendment. Judge VanDyke slammed this logic, saying, “Anyone with a basic familiarity with firearms could show you this distinction is simply inconsistent with reality.”
He emphasized that California’s reasoning would allow the state to classify nearly every single gun component – barrels, triggers, grips, even the sighting system – as a mere accessory that could be regulated or banned. VanDyke used a Sig P320 in stock configuration to demonstrate how this interpretation could gut the Second Amendment entirely.
The Red Dot, The Grip, The Trigger – All “Accessories”?
VanDyke’s video didn’t just feature legal theory. He took apart and reassembled his firearm to show how every part – from the takedown lever to the red dot optic – can be seen as an upgrade or replacement, thus labeled “non-essential.”
According to California’s logic, even the gun’s grip could be banned because different styles of grips exist. “If a better part makes the gun more effective, and a worse part still functions, then they say the better part isn’t protected,” VanDyke said. His message was clear: the logic used to justify magazine bans could be stretched to ban virtually any part of a firearm.
Copper Jacket TV: “Straight to the Supreme Court”
William from Copper Jacket TV reacted swiftly, calling VanDyke’s dissent “incredible” and confirming through CRPA President Chuck Michel that the case will be heading to the Supreme Court. William pointed out how the Ninth Circuit dodged the correct application of the Bruen decision by calling magazines accessories, thus skipping historical analysis and Second Amendment protections altogether. He warned that the same tactics will likely be used to uphold California’s assault weapon ban in the Miller case, which is waiting in the wings.
Guns & Gadgets: “A Video That Set the Second Amendment World on Fire”
Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets was one of the first to call VanDyke’s move what it truly was – unprecedented. “He dropped a diss track on the Ninth Circuit,” Jared said, noting how VanDyke bypassed over 100 pages of legal jargon with a clear, visual demonstration. Jared highlighted how this isn’t just about magazines; it’s about redefining the entire gun as a set of swappable accessories. “They called magazines accessories like a belt buckle or fuzzy dice. It’s madness,” Jared ranted. His point was simple: the courts don’t understand firearms, yet they’re ruling on them.
Colion Noir: “He Broke Tradition and Dropped Truth”
Gun rights advocate Colion Noir praised Judge VanDyke for doing what most judges would never dare: explaining firearm mechanics on camera to expose the ignorance behind anti-gun rulings. Noir emphasized that the video wasn’t about flash – it was about clarity. He explained that anti-gun judges and attorneys often don’t even know what a red dot is or how a magazine functions. “They think the steering wheel is an accessory,” Noir said mockingly, comparing it to California’s claim that magazines aren’t necessary to a gun’s operation.
A Judge Who Actually Knows What He’s Talking About
What makes VanDyke’s dissent so powerful isn’t just that it’s different – it’s that it’s right. Most Second Amendment debates are tangled in abstract theories, historical analogs, and pages of footnotes. But VanDyke skipped the academic dance and went straight to the heart of the issue: if a gun can’t operate properly without its parts, how can those parts not be protected? It’s a rare moment where someone in the judiciary actually understands firearms on a practical level. That alone is both refreshing and deeply necessary in today’s climate.
More Than a Magazine: A Backdoor Gun Ban?
The underlying danger here is what VanDyke exposed – if California’s logic holds, they could start banning one part after another until lawful gun ownership becomes practically impossible. First it’s the magazine. Then the red dot. Then the grip. Then the semi-automatic mechanism itself. VanDyke asked, “Why couldn’t this logic be used to ban all semi-automatic firearms?” The scary answer is – it absolutely could. His demonstration wasn’t just about one ruling; it was a warning.
Supreme Court in Sight
Chuck Michel, in an interview with CRPA TV, said the case is “in the perfect procedural posture” to go to the Supreme Court. The ruling from the Ninth Circuit came after years of delays, multiple remands, and several rounds through the courts. The fact that it’s a final judgment makes it ideal for SCOTUS review. According to Michel, this case gives the Supreme Court a real opportunity to clarify the Bruen framework and stop lower courts from distorting its meaning.
Public Reaction: Fury and Applause
While gun rights supporters praised VanDyke, the majority on the Ninth Circuit lashed out. Seven of the eight judges in the majority condemned the video as “wildly improper,” accusing VanDyke of acting like an expert witness. But the public response told a different story. Gun owners across the country saw the video as a breath of fresh air – someone in authority finally taking their concerns seriously. As one viewer put it, “He didn’t just talk about our rights – he showed why they matter.”
A Judiciary at War With Itself
What we’re watching unfold is not just a debate about gun parts. This is a full-blown internal conflict within the federal court system. Judges like VanDyke are standing up for what they believe is a correct reading of the Constitution, while others in the judiciary seem willing to bend legal standards to uphold gun control laws. This isn’t just disagreement – it’s defiance, as Judge Ryan Nelson said in his own dissent. He called the majority’s opinion a “judicial middle finger to the Supreme Court.”
Looking Ahead: A Defining Moment for the Second Amendment
If the Supreme Court takes up Duncan v. Bonta, it could become a landmark decision. This case has already traveled a long road, and with VanDyke’s dissent gaining national attention, the stakes are higher than ever. Millions of Americans own standard-capacity magazines. Declaring them unprotected by the Constitution doesn’t just impact California – it sets a dangerous precedent for the entire country. This isn’t just a legal fight – it’s a cultural one.
When Logic Fails, the Constitution Suffers
Judge VanDyke’s video didn’t just demonstrate gun mechanics. It highlighted something far deeper: how fragile our rights become when courts start redefining words to fit an agenda. If a magazine isn’t an “arm,” then what is? If a red dot can be banned, why not a trigger? These aren’t slippery slopes – they’re cliffs. VanDyke tried to stop the fall. Whether anyone listens will now depend on the highest court in the land. Until then, his video stands as one of the boldest dissents in recent memory – and maybe the most important.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.