Judge Provided Explanation
In a recent case, Duncan v. Bonta, judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have drawn criticism for their decision on firearm magazine limits in California. Judge Lawrence VanDyke, one of the judges in the case, released a 'video dissent' to supplement his written opinion. In it, he described the majority's approach as 'unprincipled' and 'an on/off switch for fundamental constitutional protections.' The majority opinion held that magazines holding 10 rounds or fewer are 'arms' protected by the Second Amendment, while those holding more are 'accoutrements' or 'accessories.' This standard allows for potential bans on various firearm parts and even semi-automatic guns. Van Dyke, an 'expert' in law according to his colleague, criticized the majority opinion for a fundamental misunderstanding of how firearms work. He rejected the idea that a magazine is an 'accessory' to a firearm, arguing that it is a necessary component for the firearm to function effectively. Judge Patrick Bumatay, another judge in the case, compared the majority's decision to limiting a writer's right to speak on the internet due to access to a newspaper. He noted that the Ninth Circuit has awarded California an unconstitutional, impractical, and limitless standard of review. Van Dyke also expressed concern about the ignorance displayed by judges, lawyers, and legislators regarding how firearms work. He stated that California's laws often reveal a lack of understanding about the subjects being regulated. The conclusion of the majority opinion creates a standard where only parts necessary for a firearm to fire once are protected. This, according to Van Dyke, subverts the 'in common use' provision in Heller and ignores the ban on interest balancing and the requirement of a historical analogue in Bruen. Without political change or Supreme Court intervention, there will be no immediate fix to this problem in California. However, Van Dyke argued that demonstrating the flaw in the majority's decision is a good start towards addressing the issue. Judge Ryan Nelson, another judge in the case, was in agreement with Van Dyke and Bumatay. Together, they have raised significant concerns about the constitutionality of California's firearm magazine limits.
Read also:
- United States tariffs pose a threat to India, necessitating the recruitment of adept negotiators or strategists, similar to those who had influenced Trump's decisions.
- Weekly happenings in the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag)
- Southwest region's most popular posts, accompanied by an inquiry:
- Discussion between Putin and Trump in Alaska could potentially overshadow Ukraine's concerns
