In a decision that could well find itself before the Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld California’s ban on “large capacity” magazines. In a rare move, Judge Lawrence Van Dyke offered a video dissent to the majority opinion.The en banc panel previously upheld the state’s magazine ban, but the Supreme Court vacated that decision and remanded the case in light of the Bruen decision in 2022. The Ninth Circuit then returned the case to U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez.Benitez again ruled that the law was unconstitutional, a prior position that he viewed was strengthened by the Bruen decision.
The Ninth Circuit then, again, overruled the lower court.
In a 7-4 decision authored by senior circuit Judge Susan Graber, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, the majority wrote that “a large-capacity magazine has little function in armed self-defense, but its use by mass shooters has exacerbated the harm of those horrific events.” She added:
“First, the Founders protected the right to keep and bear ‘Arms,’ not a right to keep and bear ‘Arms and Accoutrements,’ a common expression at the time of the Founding,” the opinion said. “Large-capacity magazines are optional accessories to firearms, and firearms operate as intended without a large-capacity magazine. A large-capacity magazine is thus an accessory or accoutrement, not an ‘Arm’ in itself. Possession of a large-capacity magazine therefore falls outside the text of the Second Amendment.”
In a belt-and-suspenders approach, the court further ruled that, even if large-capacity magazines were covered by the Second Amendment, “California’s law falls neatly within the Nation’s traditions of protecting innocent persons by prohibiting especially dangerous uses of weapons and by regulating components necessary to the firing of a firearm.”
Three judges appointed by President Donald Trump wrote stinging dissents. Judge Ryan Nelson wrote that his colleagues flouted the standard set by the Bruen ruling and in so doing “(butchered) the Second Amendment and (gave) a judicial middle finger to the Supreme Court.”
Judge Lawrence VanDyke went further to include an actual video in which he handles guns and accessories to show why he believes the distinction between a gun and an accessory is illusory:
The judge emphasized that he was not offering the video as new factual evidence. However, it sounds much like the testimony that an expert witness would give at trial. That brought an objection from his colleague, Judge Berzon:
“True, the prejudice to the parties here is arguably minimal because Judge VanDyke has prepared his video in support of a dissent. But if a dissent can rely on a judge’s recorded factual presentation, nothing prevents a majority opinion from doing the same thing. I therefore write separately in the hope that in the future my colleagues, whether in the majority or dissent, will do exactly and only that: write. And, although I am surprised that it is necessary to do so, I write to reemphasize that as judges, we must decide cases as they are presented to us by the parties, leaving advocacy to the attorneys and testimony to the witnesses, expert and otherwise.”
The inclusion of the video is highly irregular and many judges would likely look dimly at the use of such demonstrative evidence in an appellate dissent.
The case offers another opportunity for the Court to address the outward limits of the Second Amendment. Blue states are moving to limit a variety of devices or components deemed “accessories.” If allowed to stand, it could prove a significant area of contraction for the protections for gun ownership.
The case can now be appealed to the Supreme Court, again. It will join another magazine ban case in Ocean State Tactical v. Neronha, which is awaiting a decision on whether it will be picked up by the Court.
Naturally, theNinth Circuit decided to dsimiss the Second Amendment. The Ninth Circuit consists almost entirely of lawless, anti-American Marxist scumbags. However, things dont get better at the SCOTUS because 5 of the 9 so-called “Juastices” are also lawless, anti-American Marxist scumbags, comprising the Deep Dstate Roberts and Barrett and the 3 outspokenly Marxist scumbag lowlifes. America is in the shithole with so much scumbagwormmeat deepraved, degenerate fake-judges in place. The whole lot of them need to be eliminated.
The Ninth Circuit consists almost entirely of lawless, anti-American Marxist scumbags
===
Wrong, the 9th has been greatly diversified, and is now 50/50 with the split conservative/liberal judges appointed from Repub/Dem Presidents.
9th circuit is 16:13 last I checked that was not 50:50
I would not call that anti-American Marxist either…
This is merely a blueprint for dismantling the First Amendment. The next Freedom Week will be the last time you share a thought or opinion online …
California majorities have seen their vote, values, and rights overturned, disrespected, and denied by a government that fires rounds of lawfare from a magazine of unlimited capacity. Notwithstanding the arbitrariness of a ten-round limit, the new reality of government-engineered lawlessness has rendered arms once sufficient for lawful self-defense (e.g. the eight round capacity of the .45 of fifty years ago) woefully insufficient against the heavily-armed gangs terrorizing the streets today, as evidenced regularly by the dozens of bright yellow shell casing markers at urban crime scenes.
#74. Just another cracked pot.
Professor could you please address the case of Mahmoud Khalil?
No.
Well, Quoting Shakespeare, Henry VI, part 2, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”.
Written a little over 400 years ago. Food for thought.
Actually, this is one of the most misquoted things Shakespeare ever wrote… Shakespeare’s play is about some hard core criminals plotting a crime, indeed even overthrowing the King. The point Shakespeare is making is that society needs Attorneys to be civilized…
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens shared this reading of the line, even analyzing it in a 1985 decision: “As a careful reading of that text will reveal, Shakespeare insightfully realized that disposing of lawyers is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government.”
TxMoto-Still has nice ring to it. And that is John Paul Stevens opinion. Others would beg to differ.
I agree with the sentiment, but I researched the matter well before John Paul Stephens was even a justice.
The Second Amendment comes out of putting down a tyrant. King George lll. All government has to live with the discomfort that the right of defense reaches, through the Second amendment, right to the throat of the next tyrant. When the Second Amendment describes the necessity of a militia, that means arms as good or better than the army of the government carries.
The antecedent to the Second Amendment is the English Bill of Rights (1689). This followed the Glorious Revolution, which deposed James II, a Stuart and the last Catholic Ruler of Great Britain.
Per the document, James II had denied arms to his Protestant subjects, and the 1689 BOR restored their right to arms. No militia service was mentioned.
The Second Amendment explains the benefit to the nation of an unfettered right to arms: a properly functioning: (“well-regulated,” as a regulator clock keeps accurate time) militia. Only practice will make a man a good shot, and only a personally-owned firearm will permit the most practice possible.
Further, while practice with any firearm would be beneficial, the most fruitful practice would be with an actual service rifle
Finally, the Second Amendment did not condition gun ownership on militia membership, because American women owned firearms from the beginning. But no women were officially members of any militia, until the National Guard (the organized militia) accepted their first female nurses in the mid-1950s
If California wins and this is affirmed, the next logical step is to re-define “large capacity” down from ten to six, making every existing semi-automatic obsolete and inoperable. And then, of course, those who want law-abiding citizens to have no right to self-defense, will move the maximum from six to three, and then to one. They will not stop there, either. The logic of the 9th Circus would permit a California law requiring every firearm, so defined, to weigh at least 25 pounds. That might satisfy them.
If you go to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit YouTube channel, you’ll see that this judge’s video has 143,000 views, whereas their other vids are usually in the several hundred views range, with some only getting double digit view counts. This one is getting some traction. Me like!
Second, even assuming that the text of the Second Amendment encompasses the possession of an optional accessory like a large-capacity magazine, California’s law falls neatly within the Nation’s traditions of protecting innocent persons by prohibiting especially dangerous uses of weapons and by regulating components necessary to the firing of a firearm.
Wait, what? If the text covers it, that’s the end of the analysis, right? When the text of the Constitution says one thing, but the “Nation’s traditions” say another, the Constitutional text wins.
Change my mind.
“When the text of the Constitution says one thing, but the “Nation’s traditions” say another, the Constitutional text wins.”
Unfortunately, Bruen cited the 1789 and earlier “traditions” to (my conclusion) make the decision more palatable to the part of the populace that is uncomfortable on the subject of firearms. It would have been much preferable to have simply reaffirmed a plain reading of the Second Amendment text. That unnecessary embellishment was an engraved invitation for deliberately disingenuous appellate court judges to find (or fabricate) entirely specious precedent practices to continue to knee-cap the natural right to self-defense as found in the Second. Will this decision be ultimately overturned by SCOTUS? Probably, but how much damage will be incurred, and what magnitude of resources expended by 2A advocates, before that happens? This is just one more example of “lawfare” and I am beginning to suspect that every bit of it is an intentional part of an insidious design.
The reason the 2nd ammendment exist is so the people would have the right and means to enforce the rest of the constitution. Period. Independent Bob.
A couple of years ago a legal gun owner who had a license to carry in the state of New Hampshire entered the state of Massachusets where somehow he was apprehended by law enforcement and charged with carry a conceled weapon without a LTC in Massachusets. He gets a lawyer. For a defence the lawyer asks the judge if our constitutional rights stop at a state line. Not wanting to open a can worms, the judge threw the case out. Well, do our constitutional rights stop at a state line? By the way the way in Massachusets, you do not have a right to own a firearm. In Massachsets it’s a priviledge. Independent Bob
The answer works be HELL NO! Otherwise we are not a union.
Ninth Circuit needs to read an American History book, preferably not written by Howard Zinn. Maybe the Constitution too as it appears to only want to enforce the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx
Andrew Hanson, et al., Petitioners v. District of Columbia, et al. No. 24-936 (magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds)
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution allows a categorical ban on arms that are indisputably common throughout the United States and overwhelming used for lawful purposes (generally) and self-defense (specifically).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-936.html Feb 26 2025 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 31, 2025). Mar 13 2025 Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 30, 2025.
The law is clear.
The law needs no interpretation.
To infringe on a subset of “arms”—an integral part of an arm—is antithetical, flippant, and frivolous and demonstrates the deep-seated contempt for fundamental law these judges hold—their calculated disdain for America.
These judges must be impeached and removed, or prosecuted for the egregious act of willfully attempting to deprive Americans of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
The right to keep and bear arms is absolute and “shall not be infringed.”
This collection—these abject parodies of judges—has irrefutably “infringed.”
Reparations for the loss of enjoyment of the right to keep and bear arms must be quantified and conveyed to all gun owners in California.
The judges of the Appeals or Supreme Court that do not immediately strike this parody of law down with extreme prejudice must be impeached, convicted, and removed.
Indeed, this is not merely corrupt and partial adjudication; this is war.
___________________________________________________________________________
2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
We are coming up on the centennial of the National Firearms Act, which tried to be a de facto prohibition of guns popular with criminal street gangs: the sawed-off shotgun, which could be concealed in a coat, and the submachine gun.
But Congress was afraid of running afoul of the Second Amendment. So it used its taxing power to regulate these types of firearms. A $200 tax certificate put ownership out of reach for most.
“But Congress was afraid of running afoul of the Second Amendment. So it used its taxing power to regulate these types of firearms. A $200 tax certificate put ownership out of reach for most.”
Some states have adopted that precedent. New Jersey, for example, recently “classified” all .50 BMG rifles in order to require registration and payment of a like sum. The obvious goal is ultimately confiscation. Of, course, since PRNJ is governed by imbeciles who have zero knowledge of the subject matter of their legislation, they left rounds such as .416 Barrett, .510 DTC, and .338 Lapua Magnum unrestricted.
This ruling is emotional and tries to twist the definition of firearms to exclude magazines which are needed to use a firearm. It will be overturned as high capacity magazines are common in the US. Even Washington when they enacted their ban carefully grandfathered in all who had purchased them before the ban went into effect.
I didn’t even think about it being explained that way but it’s 1000% true. You cant utilize the firearm without out a magazine, extension is irrelevant. You could argue a sight would be an accessory, good luck banning those, but not any kind of magazine.
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an Americans. Tench Coxe
When I worked at a major narcotics task force on the West Coast we lovingly referred to this court as the 9th Circus Court…
Yes, Rush Limbaugh famously refered to them as the 9th Circus Court, and it still applies to this day. SMDH
I’m 100% in favor of individual possession of guns, but high capacity magazines seems a bit too much. They may as well allow bazookas or fully automatic machine guns. Hate to concur with the 9th.
Again, they allowed cannons back in the day. The ATF didnt exist at the time of the founding
This will be overturned. Majority of states sell handguns that come with a 12-15 round magazine. So it is a common use component of a handgun. This will be overturned easily. And like NY, CA will strengthen the 2nd amendment in the process by creating solid precedent against these silly laws.
They could have went with 12 rounds which might have survived scrutiny. But leading the charge will only blunt the spear.
Per the Second Amendment, and the writings of the original authors, a bazooka, or even a tank would be permitted under the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment specifically DOES NOT mention “self-defense.” It does mention “necessary for the security of a FREE state…” which literally means defense against someone attacking your FREE state.
You really ought to educate yourself on the meaning of “high capacity” per this unconstitutional law, it restricts magazines to 10 rounds or less. A STANDARD AR-15 magazine holds 20 rounds, and an extended (most common) magazine holds 30 rounds. The most popular pistol sold in America, the Glock-19 has a standard magazine of 15 and extended magazine of 17. The Glock-17 has a standard magazine of 17 rounds.
This idiotic law ONLY restricts legal and lawful gun owners in their ability to defend themselves against well armed and BETTER armed criminals. Here’s a real tough concept to understand for these idiot legislatures CRIMINALS DON’T OBEY THE LAW!!! PERIOD… SO LET’S MAKE MORE STUPID IDIOTIC LAWS FOR THE CRIMINALS TO IGNORE… That is not a hard concept to grasp.
Preach
My 30 round magazines are no more dangerous than a 10 shot magazine. I can stuff my pockets with 20 of them and do as much damage. What keeps me from doing that is I am a responsible gun owner who does not misuse a weapon. Just like millions or responsible gun owners who will insist on their full 2nd Amendment Rights, unobscured by misguided left wing abusers of the Constitution that lurk in the muddy waters of California and the rest of the West Coast and the Northeastern states.
As stated above, who determines “large” capacity. Compared to a wheel gun, aga revolver, ten rounds is a large capacity. But yet, comparing a wheel gun to a derringer, six rounds is a large capacity. And so it goes on.
Why do police carry pistols with “high-capacity” magazines? Are they worse shots than civilians?
Note further that not even the most militarized SWAT teams carry bazookas or machine guns.
“Note further that not even the most militarized SWAT teams carry bazookas or machine guns.”
Wrong. Virtually every swat team in the nation, every major, minor and small town LE, including almost every federal agency, has access to, and uses in actual practice, fully automatic weapons. Are you aware that ATF, FBI, each (insert state here) Bureau of Investigation, USDA, EPA, every ‘agencies’ LE division, and even every postmaster in every post office nationwide, (including the ludicrous blue states), has access to, and full authorization to possess fully automatic weapons? (Often referred to as a machine gun).
It is often better to be thought of as a fool, than to open your mouth and confirm your status.
As cowardly as the Bruen qualification of the plan text of the 2nd A is, civilians did own artillary prior to 1789, and there were available (albeit expensive) repeating arms at the time that did not require a discrete trigger activation for each round, so arms in those categories will most likely ultimately be ruled to be covered and legal. In fact, there are currently cases making their way up the appeals chain challenging the fully automatic weapons ban. Don’t forget that one of the intents of the 2nd was to allow citizens to defend themselves against future oppressive governments. By that standard, we should be permitted to own nuclear weapons, so why are you getting your panties in a bunch over lesser weapons? You might want to expend some thought on how we came to be a nation of people that you (evidently) do not trust to own effective means to defend themselves, rather than on barring those means to the people, and about how we might redress the failures that led to that mistrust.
Smh none of this is legal! That chief judge is seemingly ruling with emotions! As she felt she had to bring up mass shooting. As if every mass shooter uses a large capacity magazine. Unlikely as a majority of mass shooting is done with a handgun! Large capacity magazines are used mostly with rifles and its owners are notoriously law abiding! I say fight this to the end. Do not allow any further eroding of the 2A. Do not give them an inch, THEY WILL TAKE A MILE(Gun/2A)
They have already taken that mile brother, we are on mile 99…
I swear. The legal profession is doing major damage to not only themselves but the nation.