We've sure seen a lot of news about leftist activist judges lately, but lest we forget, there are some good judges out there, even on the notoriously oft-overturned Ninth Circuit. It is on that court that we find Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke who, in his dissent from the 9th Circuit's decision in the Duncan v Bonta case, blistered the judges and other activists who show no demonstrated knowledge of firearms or how they work.

Judge Lawrence VanDyke posted his dissent of the 9th Circuit Courts ruling in Duncan v Bonta stating that his colleagues “lack a basic familiarity with firearms to understand the inherent shortcomings and obvious inadmissibility of the test that California was proposing.” pic.twitter.com/e9genNMCyz

— Silent Majority Foundation (@smfjb_org) March 24, 2025

Judge VanDyke said:

California's argument which a majority has unwisely (inaudible) is based on the unstated assumption that there is some basic I guess, unadorned, without any accessories, firearm that would be protected as an arm under the Second Amendment, but everything else is not protected such as any accessories that have been added to that firearm, (which) are not protected. And I hope you can tell from this video, that idea is simply unrealistic and could never be applied in real life. Like many of this court's ideas about the Second Amendment, it stems from a basic misunderstanding of how firearms work combined with a highly unrealistic idea of how such a rule would be administered in real life. Ultimately the only rule that makes sense, in reality, and the text of the Constitution, is that the entire handgun here, including the grip, the takedown lever, the slide and barrel, the sighting system, and this magazine, are all a part of the arm, within the meaning of the Second Amendment.

This seems obvious to anyone with any working familiarity with firearms, and to judge by the few seconds of video where Judge VanDyke is handling an autoloading pistol, he appears to have some experience. It's a safe bet that places him in the minority on the 9th Circuit.

The fact is that firearms are designed with a certain magazine capacity in mind. These are not "high-capacity" magazines, for the most part; they are, for the gun they are intended to work with, "standard-capacity" magazines. Attempts to ban them are futile; it is childishly easy to modify existing magazines, and anyone with a modicum of mechanical ability would be able to do so. Add to that the fact that there are millions of standard capacity magazines in circulation, and you have a ridiculous waste of time and taxpayers' money by the various state legislatures and the courts. Once again, would-be gun-banners have fallen into the trap, which follows this progression: "We have to do something! This is something. Let's do this."

The trouble is, in this case, that this runs afoul of the Constitution.

See Also: California Legislator Introduces Bill to Gut Self-Defense Protections for Citizens

WINNING: CA Democrat Withdraws His Own Anti-Self Defense Bill in State Assembly

The court case in question, Duncan v Bonta, is challenging California's "high capacity" magazine ban. Judge VanDyke was joined by judges Patrick J. Bumatay, Sandra S. Ikuta, and Ryan D. Nelson in the dissent. Several blue states have such laws, and the ultimate disposition of court cases around them remains to be seen. It will likely end up before the Supreme Court, and I won't hazard any guess as to how that will turn out.

Editor's Note: Radical leftist judges are doing everything they can to hamstring President Trump's agenda to make America great again.

Help us hold these corrupt judges accountable for their unconstitutional rulings. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.