CA's Right to Ban Large Cap Mags Affirmed by 9th Circus; Video Dissent Triggers

[Skookum]

On Thursday, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Justice Lawrence VanDyke issued a video dissent sharing his opinion that the court demonstrated a misunderstanding of firearms in Duncan v. Bonta:

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2025/03/21/ninth-circuit-justice-films-video-dissent-with-pistols-to-show-court-majority-doesnt-understand-firearms/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DMC7Ntd4d4c&pp=ygUXanVkZ2UgdmFuZHlrZSBndW4gdmlkZW8%3D

Judge VanDyke is a highly controversial 2020 Trump appointee practicing in MT at the time, and still based there. He is knowledgeable about firearms, and seems to be a competition shooter. He claims to have never made a video before, but his production seems more than up to YouTube standards. He is taking a lot of flak from his subversive fellow judges who went out of their ways to side with CA in flagrantly ignoring the NYSRP v. Bruen ruling by SCOTUS.

SCOTUS needed to step in long ago to put a stop to the subversive state AGs, district courts, and appellate courts that are deliberately and criminally misinterpreting — actually reinterpreting — NYSRP v. Bruen.

When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's 'unqualified command.'
–NYSRPA v. Bruen

There is no valid historical tradition — during the Founding Era when the 2nd Amendment was drafted — of limiting firearm ammunition capacity, nor of banning certain types of parts of a firearm necessary for function.