The ongoing battle over Second Amendment rights in California took a dramatic turn as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voted to uphold the state’s ban on large-capacity magazines—a decision that has stirred outrage among gun rights advocates nationwide.

In a 7–4 ruling, the court sided with California, declaring that magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds are not protected under the Second Amendment, or that even if they are, the state’s restriction aligns with the nation’s “historical tradition” of regulating dangerous weapons.

What made this ruling particularly controversial wasn’t just the outcome—it was the response from Judge Lawrence VanDyke, one of the dissenting judges.

Rather than relying solely on a written opinion, VanDyke released an unprecedented video dissent on YouTube, where he personally handled firearms to demonstrate how magazines and firing mechanisms function. His goal, according to his statement, was to provide a “visual explanation” that written words alone could not convey.

The move, however, was met with immediate backlash from other members of the court.

Judge Marsha Berzon, concurring with the majority, sharply criticized VanDyke’s approach, accusing him of acting as an “expert witness” and introducing materials outside the case record—a serious departure from judicial norms.

Berzon labeled the video as “wildly improper,” arguing that it blurred the lines between judicial reasoning and public advocacy. Legal scholars have since debated whether VanDyke’s video dissent could impact judicial ethics and the integrity of appellate proceedings.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision may not be the end of this story. With ongoing litigation surrounding gun control and the Second Amendment, it’s possible the issue could reach the U.S. Supreme Court, especially given the Bruen precedent’s emphasis on historical analysis.

If the Supreme Court agrees to review the case, it could once again redefine how lower courts interpret the constitutional right to bear arms—and whether states like California can continue to enforce sweeping magazine restrictions.

This case highlights the deep divide within the judiciary over how to balance public safety and constitutional freedoms.
Judge VanDyke’s video dissent, while unconventional, underscores growing frustration among some jurists who believe the courts are undermining the Second Amendment through what they see as political rulings rather than legal reasoning.

Whether or not the Supreme Court intervenes, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling—and VanDyke’s fiery video response—will likely shape the national conversation on gun rights for years to come.