Appeals Court Judge Disassembles Gun In Video Dissent From Anti-2A 9th Cir. Decision
“I think anyone with a basic familiarity with firearms could show you that this attempted distinction is simply inconsistent with reality”
Like most “blue” states, California has enacted a state statute banning magazines for semi-automatic handguns that carry more than ten rounds. See our prior coverage of Illinois’ own so-called “high-capacity” handgun magazine ban: Illinois Supreme Court Upholds Ban on ‘Assault Weapons’ and ‘Large Capacity Magazines’
Those statutes, as we have covered, have come under legal fire by pro-Second Amendment groups eager to maximize the self-defense options for law-abiding citizens who wish protect their families.
In California’s case, the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. sued the State of California in May 2017 in the federal Southern District of California. After numerous twists and turns, including a trip up to and back from the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has now upheld California’s “large-capacity” handgun magazine ban, making it illegal in the states and territories of the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, to own a handgun magazine holding more than ten rounds.
But the most amazing part of the opinion, and an absolute must watch (see below), is an 18-minute YouTube video by dissenter Lawrence VanDyke, who eviscerates the majority’s argument that magazines holding more than ten rounds can be constitutionally banned because such magazines are “accessories,” and not an essential part of a handgun.
Courthouse News Service has the story:
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday in favor of California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta, upholding the state’s ban on large-capacity magazines and reversing a lower court’s decision that had deemed the law unconstitutional.
In the case of Virginia Duncan et al. v. Rob Bonta, the en banc court determined that California’s law banning possession of large-capacity magazines complies with the Second Amendment and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment for the state’s Attorney General.
The appellate court provided two independent reasons for its conclusion. First, it determined that “the text of the Second Amendment does not encompass the right to possess large-capacity magazines because they are neither ‘arms’ nor protected accessories.”
“Large-capacity magazines are optional accessories to firearms, and firearms operate as intended without a large-capacity magazine,” the court explained. “Possession of a large-capacity magazine therefore falls outside the text of the Second Amendment.”
Second, the court reasoned that even if the Second Amendment did cover such accessories, “California’s ban falls within the Nation’s tradition of protecting innocent persons by prohibiting especially dangerous uses of weapons and by regulating components necessary to the firing of a firearm.”
Of note, the federal district, or trial-level, court, had held the ban unconstitutional:
The ruling reverses a controversial 2023 decision by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who had struck down the ban in a strongly worded 71-page order. Benitez, a George W. Bush appointee, characterized the law as an “extreme ban” that curtailed Californians’ Second Amendment rights.
“In so doing, the state denies a citizen the federal constitutional right to use common weapons of their own choosing for self-defense,” Benitez wrote in his order. “There have been, and there will be, times where many more than 10 rounds are needed to stop attackers, yet under this statute, the state says ‘too bad.'”
As to Judge Benitez’s statement that “[t]here have been, and there will be, times where many more than 10 rounds are needed to stop attackers,” that is obviously true. But the State of California, and many others, don’t care about your right to self-defense, even after the landmark U.S. Supreme Court Heller, McDonald, and Bruen cases.
The good news is that this 9th Circuit case, being en banc, had 11 judges sitting for this opinion, and there were four judges in dissent:
The Ninth Circuit’s decision was not unanimous. Several judges filed dissenting opinions, including U.S. Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson, a Donald Trump appointee, who argued that “the majority’s decision flouted Bruen and spurned statutory procedure for en banc proceedings.”
Also dissenting were fellow Trump appointees U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay, U.S. Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson and U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, as well as George W. Bush appointee U.S. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta.
“California’s magazine ban is presumptively unconstitutional because the plain text of the Second Amendment protects the possession of magazines capable of feeding more than 10 rounds,” Bumatay said. “Nothing in the text, or the country’s historical understanding of the Second Amendment, warrants California’s magazine ban.”
And, in a move making the most headlines about this story, Judge VanDyke made a video explaining exactly why the majority opinion is dead wrong:
VanDyke’s dissent included a controversial video showing him handling handguns and explaining their mechanics, which U.S. Senior Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon criticized in her concurring opinion. The Bill Clinton appointee argued that VanDyke had “in essence appointed himself as an expert witness in this case, providing a factual presentation with the express aim of convincing the readers of his view of the facts without complying with any of the procedural safeguards that usually apply to experts and their testimony.”
But in a deft move, Judge VanDyke, in the written portion of his dissent, explained why the video was entirely proper:
Finally, I must respond to Judge Berzon’s concurrence attacking at some length the video portion of this dissent as “wildly improper.”
* * * *
Demonstrating the majority’s consummate textualist bona fides, Judge Berzon’s first criticism starts and ends with the text of our court’s General Orders: “[T]he determination of each appeal … shall be evidenced by a written disposition.” 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 4.5(a) (emphasis added). Judge Berzon emphasizes “written,” and I’m never one to dispute that words can be “a real workhorse when italicized,” particularly in Second Amendment cases. McDougall v. Cnty. of Ventura, 23 F.4th 1095, 1122 n.5 (9th Cir. 2022) (VanDyke, J., concurring). But emphasizing one word doesn’t license us to ignore the rest of the text. General Order 4.5(a) doesn’t even say that “the determination of each appeal” shall be “in writing,” much less that it shall be entirely or solely in writing. It says only that the “determination of each appeal … shall be evidenced by a written disposition.” 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 4.5(a) (different emphasis added). It should be self-evident that if the rule requires only that “the determination … be evidenced by a written disposition” then it doesn’t require that it be “a written disposition”—just evidenced by one. In other words, our court can’t just issue an oral ruling from the bench disposing of a case that is never memorialized—i.e., “evidenced”—in writing. The administrative need for such a rule is obvious enough.
My dissent clearly is “evidenced by” a written disposition. Much of the dissent is actually written, and this written portion evidences (i.e., refers to) the oral portion. And even if the rule required that the disposition itself be written, that too would be satisfied by my dissent—which again, is written in part. Indeed, only if the rule unambiguously required that the “determination of each appeal” be only in writing would Judge Berzon’s criticism have any merit. But aside from running squarely into the phrase “evidenced by,” such an extreme reading of General Order 4.5(a) would also be inconsistent with our court’s established practice. We have long included links to videos in our court’s opinions, as well as pictures, timelines, and diagrams. Nobody thought that was a problem until now, and Judge Berzon even defends that practice in her concurrence. In short, Judge Berzon’s overreading of General Order 4.5(a) is just that—an overreading.
[bold emphasis added]
As we used to say when I worked for Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, when finding a particularly powerful piece of judicial writing, BOOM!
In any case, please watch the entire 18-minute video, you’ll be glad you did:
X, of course, is on fire, with one of the posts declaring Judge VanDyke is “now in my top 5 for next SCOTUS picks”:
Judge Lawrence VanDyke's 𝘋𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘷. 𝘉𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘢 colleagues are annoyed at him for producing a Youtube video to highlight their obtuseness. Judge Berzon makes the further mistake of quoting text to a textualist. pic.twitter.com/qt3M7dGq34
— circleglider (@circleglider) March 20, 2025
MUST WATCH:
Judge Lawrence VanDyke of the 9th Circuit offers a video dissent in Duncan v Bonta, a case dealing with California's 10 round mag ban.
VanDyke exposes the absolute lunacy of the gun grabbers. pic.twitter.com/6Op45sT8hF
— American Firearms Association (@2A_Freedom) March 20, 2025
Judge Lawrence VanDyke breaks down his reasoning for dissenting in the Duncan v. Bonta (California magazine capacity) case by using a Sig P320 to show how disingenuous the state's claim is.
1. His logic is spot on. They wanted to remove the 2nd Amendment protection of… pic.twitter.com/G4YmvoOtpv
— Mrgunsngear (@Mrgunsngear) March 20, 2025
The next step obviously is for the various cases that have been decided at the appellate level, including this one, to go to the U.S. Supreme Court for review:
Legal Alert: The en banc 9th Circuit rewrites history to uphold California's ban on 10+ round magazines in @NRA and @CRPAnews-backed challenge, Duncan v. Bonta.
We’ll be asking SCOTUS to hear the case.
https://t.co/n64WCAS3uq pic.twitter.com/ufKHr1QvgF
— NRA (@NRA) March 20, 2025
Whether the highest Court in the land will hear the case is anybody’s guess, but it’s a definite possibility.
My prediction is that SCOTUS will take the case and will reverse the 9th Circuit, making the high-capacity magazine ban a thing of the past.
We will keep you posted.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“We select the preferred outcome first, then we rewrite the English language, the Constitution, and the US Code to manufacture support for our preferred outcome.”
That’s what half of the justices on the Supreme Court do. They already know how they will vote before they ever hear a case—they just go through the motions.
Much of a judge’s time requires going through the motions.
– motions in limine.
– motions to dismiss.
– motions for a more definite statement.
– motions to strike irrelevant or scandalous matter.
– motions for continuance.
– motions for summary judgment.
Etc, etc.
Is that a quote from Winston Smith?
What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?
Oh, don’t worry, your 2nd Amendment rights aren’t being infringed. They are only regulating “accessories”, which the 2nd Amendment does not cover. It’s all good!
Next they will regulate packs of paper, only allowing them to be sold in 20 page pouches. They’re only regulating “accessories”, which the 1st amendment does not cover.
so are now electronic forms of speech not protected because they are not mentioned in the first amendment? These judges need a psychological evaluation
Under the electronic signatures act of many jurisdictions, a YouTube video can qualify as a writing.
10-round magazine: a part required for a California gun to function.
11-round magazine: an accessory not required for it to function.
The 2nd Amendment does not grant any right. The right to use firearms or any other weapon for self-defense is a pre-existing right. It’s the “life” part in “life, liberty and happiness”.
The 2nd is a restriction on government to not interfere with that pre-existing right. This means that any law passed by any legislative body inhibiting the keeping and bearing of arms by lawful citizens is de facto unconstitutional. That was the intent of the founders. Evidence of this is abundant in their writings before and after the Constitution was written.
There might be “reasonable” restrictions as to where carrying a weapon might be limited, but these should be extremely few and subject to “strict scrutiny”.
It is interesting to note how government goes about restricting
(Dang, I reached my 10 word first amendment limit)
Get a speech permit and you can write more than 10 words.
Just not in a sensitive space… like the Internet.
And not concealed. No more envelopes.
And if you can pony up an extra $200 per statement, you can own a fully automatic word processor, which of course you cannot use or own near sensitive places like schools, government buildings, businesses who don’t like your right to speak or airports.
You WILL, of course, have to be over age 21 and undergo a background check before you will be allowed to speak or print. Any “right” to speech you think you may have will be stripped away if you have committed undesirable behavior particularly if you are a veteran.
I am amazed that the judge has firearms inside a US courthouse!
I am curious whether all judges are allowed to carry or there was a special procedure to enter the courthouse with firearms.
Judges are a superior class of people, just like members of Congress. Many rules do not apply to them. I am sure many judges are packing.
Yes, judges automatically get concealed carry permits in California.
And yes, they can bring a firearm into the courthouse
Not amazed, in Onondaga county we had one judge (from a prominent in local politics family) (D)s OC. Who was infamous for never ever granting a carry permit for handguns. Don’t even bother trying to get one in his court. He even turned down a bodega owner who had repeatedly been robbed at gunpoint – “because him also having a firearm would just escalate the problem”.
Not too surprisingly, one day he granted his one and only permit. To himself.
He had received a few death threats and somehow had no concerns about “escalating THAT unfortunate situation”.
I’m more amazed that someone in CA let alone a judge knew which end of the gun to point at the bad guys,
There is an even simpler explanation that shatters the opinion.
A magazine is NECESSARY for a semi-automatic firearm to function.
Arguing that a small magazine is a necessary part of the arm, but a large magazine is an “accessory” is prima facie stupid (that’s a legal term, y’all).
What if the manufacturer supplies a large magazine WITH the arm, and the state forces you to buy a reduced-sized magazine? Does THAT not become the “accessory?”
That last is more than jkust a supposition — several states already require their residents to do exactly that, Massachusetts being one, and New Mexico just came this close to being another.
That’s exactly what the judge pointed out by saing the Sig P320 comes with a larger magazine and the ruling forces buyers to downgrade
He then goes on to show how EVERY SINGLE PART of thenP320 including the FCU can be swapped out and the argument for downgrading a 10 capacity magazine could apply to every other part of the gun …
He really did a masterful job of creating an easy logical comprehensive argument against many lines of attack.
Which only gun owner would understand or think of.
It’s a nice piece of work and deserves to go viral.
I am a 2nd Amendment absolutist. I view any and all laws and attendant regulations to be an infringement and should be null and void. If you want to buy the USS Missouri just so you can fire the 16” guns, government should have zero say in that. None.
I am far less afraid of the homicidal maniac with a gun than moral busybodies using government to ban something they find icky.
I have reached my tolerance for these traitorous fools and wish they’d follow Rosie O’Donnell’s example and darken some other country’s liberties.
Sure, but I really don’t think it would be safe to fire off the USS Missouri’s 16” guns within 500 feet of a k-12 school, while in session. That might be a breach of the peace!
There is nothing wrong with rules about not using your arms in certain places or at certain times unless it is for self defense.
Which is inherently different from not being able to bear such arms in such places.
Many people are unaware that while the language of the federal gun free school zone act allows a state permit holder to carry his firearm inside an otherwise prohibited school zone, he still violates the law if he is forced to use his sidearm inside the zone in perfectly legal self defense. Legislative stupidity, or craftiness?
the problem is:
the minute you permit a government bureaucrat to begin writing rules (about almost anything). he rarely knows when to stop
Nah.
The girls would hide under their desks, and the boys would all run to the windows snd cheer.
P.S. There are of course NO INNATE DIFFERENCES between girls and boys.
One sniveling handwringer I know said something to the effect of “what if your neighbor had a Howitzer! What about that?!?”
My reply was that if he had that Howitzer pointed at the right son of bitch that I was fine with it.
Wring, wring, snivel, snivel…
In a serious vein, a howitzer might be restricted in when and where it is fired, primarily because it has an effect on an area larger than a perpetrator of violence. Same with the argument that you can’t carry a grenade in public – any use of such a weapon for defense might be too indiscriminate for the purpose.
BTW, I’m a fan of howitzers in riots. Grape shot from a cannon only really gets the front few rows. Howitzers can get to the organizers behind the ranks of useful idiots. Every militia should have available to it both cannon and howitzers.
My argument for the use of any arm in legitimate self-defense is that if it can be used to protect your life without endangering the lives of innocent persons, it’s OK. This is why we have a right to nuclear weapons (in theory) but can’t use them because there are no practical self-defense uses of a nuclear weapon that wouldn’t result in the deaths of innocent persons. A howitzer? It’s easy to imagine scenarios in which an artillery piece could be used for self-defense without threatening the lives of innocent persons.
Ummmm, not when you bring in the “imminent” part of the requirements for self-defense, I think. Unless, of course, you’re firing because you see your neighbor loading his howitzer to fire at you. Otherwise, even if he’s within range of his preferred weapon, most courts and juries are probably going to say you could have just gotten under cover.
And, no, this is NOT a silly back and forth. Because this is America, and there have been some REALLY strange court cases over those 250+ years.
You’re going to enjoy Arizona.
Surprising the hand-wringer even knew of the term “howitzer”
Nah, he thought it as the lead character in “Network.”
I had a friend, a science fiction writer (Anne McCaffery), who moved to Ireland because of big tax breaks.
I had an employer who did the same.
Wow. I like VanDyke. In his introductory remarks preceding the instructive part of the video, he shows humility and lack of hubris. Essential attributes for a wise judge.
Do we need high capacity magazines? You bet we do. I saw a video where a man took 17 rounds before he dropped. He dropped suddenly, and was fully functional before that. I don’t know where the legislators get “ten” as the proper limit for a magazine. Of course one can always carry a spare magazine. But it takes me about two seconds to eject and reload. In a panic situation those two seconds could make a big difference.
Attention President Trump. Keep VanDyke in mind for your next SCOTUS nomination if you get one.
The right to one’s life strongly implies, if not presupposes, a right to defend it. A right to defend one’s life similarly implies a right to the tools necessary to do the job. And not just any tools, but the best and most efficient. Permitting us only lesser tools, limiting our ability to defend our lives, reflects a de facto reduction in the value of the individual’s right to life, an absolute right not yet disavowed by our government. Yet, that is what they’re doing when they tell us we “do not need” this rifle, or that magazine, or that kind of ammunition. What they’re saying is “Your lives are not worth enough to justify the possession or use of those weapons.”
In a panic situation those two seconds could make a big difference.
In a panic situation, those two seconds could become a lifetime. Because it is a panic situation. (Training can help, but it’s inherently stressful.)
So. What happens if I choose to carry two Glocks, both with 10 round magazines? Does that violate the high capacity magazine limit?
That’s why Quantrill and his band (and others I’m sure) used to carry a half dozen Navy Colts; even swapping out pre-loaded cylinders just took too long.
is no one going to comment that in the video there is an AK-47 on the wall behind the judge?
Sssssssh!
the best of this was that blmplo and mexican cartels IMMEDIATELY THREW OUT alll their mags that held more than 10 rounds
wow
we dodged a bullet there
If I didn’t know better I believe I’d have observed a touch of sarcasm in your comment, DC…
Any limit to magazine capacity is arbitrary. If 10 rounds are safer than 15, then 8 is safer than 10. If so, then 4 is even safer, and 1 is the safest (while still allowing the firearm to operate). Where is the study showing that “10” is some kind of magic number that makes a magazine acceptably “safe” for use? What facts have been used to make this determination and by what metrics was this limit set? Arbitrary laws are unconstitutional, period.
As someone else once wrote (here on LI?):
What? Do the first 10 round not hurt?
Exactly the same number of studies that said 6 feet was ‘safe’ from the coof.
Whatever it is, it’s sure not because their own police have determined that ten rounds is sufficient for all situations. Police are never, never, never bound by such limits, AND their procurement contracts ROUTINELY specify larger magazines than those as a STANDARD.
(Sorry for my use of capitals, but when I am posting from my phone, accessing the angle brackets and slashes to do HTML is such a stone bitch that it’s not practical.)
The so-called (by Leftist dominated governments) high or large capacity magazines ARE the standard magazines for all semi-automatic pistols which can accept such magazines (e.g. the M1911A1 and Sig 938 pistols can not accept even a 10 round magazine fully within the grip).
Ten is the maximum number of fingers available for a moronic legislator to count, and clearly indicates the limit of moron lawyers who know that their are 10 more digits on their feet but are too fooking stupid to remove their shoes to use them.
At some point, I believe that anarchy will become the choice when the law fails to solve the problem.
If that is the case, I hope the anarchists go for the lawyers and judges first, and not the citizenry.
The French may have had a better idea in the late 1700s.
It’s unbelievable to me the time and money utterly wasted on a simple phrase in our brilliant Constitution…your right and my right to keep and bare arms…to protect ourselves, our families, and our Country…look at what the progressive leftists have done, and continue to do, in court and with laws passed “democratically.” I think we all know that their end goal is full confiscation.
The left truly does ruin EVERYTHING they touch…and they DO NOT CARE about our God-given inalienable RIGHTS. Their god is progressive tyranny at the hands of big government…but don’t worry, they’ll protect you…just turn in your arms.
Their god is both themselves and the State (for they are the State).
The same attitude is found in “climate change” alarmists. Thousands of years ago, when the climate changed, humans blamed the gods. Today, Leftists blame humans because they believe we’re the gods now.
Can’t we just go back to the days when we appeased the gods with virgin sacrifices into volcanoes? Or did the man-gods diddle all of the virgins and there are none left?
We could switch to trans.
Finding an active volcano is most of the US is the harder part.
If you really want to see the anti 2A folks brain shut down/restart then concede their argument on magazine capacity of semiautomatic …but Only if they agree that revolvers are 100% legal to have in the home, carry outside the home and to carry concealed by average adult Citizens without interference by the State or any business open to general public. If I can use WiFi at some coffee house to exercise 1A then what is the logic in refusing me entry with a concealed, nice little S&W air weight .38 revolver to exercise my 2A? Can’t be ‘safety’ unless that business is required to assume a duty to provide the protection they deny by banning 2A rights.
My thoughts on the responsibility of businesses that are gun-free zones (from 2018):
Making a business place a gun-free zone is an establishment’s attempt at securing the venue from the threat of assailants armed with firearms. If the security arrangements fail, then the business is responsible for having taken inadequate precautions. They are better off being neutral and presenting no pretext of security from armed assault, than they are in creating a false impression of security to the public that uses their facilities. People who voluntarily enter gun-free zones do not do so thinking, “I know I’m exposing myself to a greater threat of danger here.” In fact, gun-free zones are meant to convey exactly the opposite impression and businesses understand that most people are stupid enough to believe it. It is the falsity of this impression, and the intent to make it, that makes businesses responsible for what happens when their security fails. They create what is effectively an implied contract – If you disarm yourself to do business with me, I will keep you safe while you are in my establishment – and then fail at their end of it.
Also, businesses that create gun-free zones take active steps to prevent people from protecting themselves, so they become responsible when they fail to prevent a criminal act because they have assumed complete responsibility for the individual’s safety. (If they have not, shouldn’t gun-free zone signs have a disclaimer – “By establishing a gun-free zone on this premises, (business name here) makes no guarantees, express or implied, concerning your personal safety”?) Unlike merely posting guards to protect, they make individuals on their property vulnerable to predators who get past their (inadequate) security.
In my early days as an activist, I had a bunch of transparent large “return address labels” printed up by a mail-order stationery house, saying, MANAGEMENT ACCEPTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR SAFETY ON THESE PREMISES. Every time I encountered a NO GUNS sign, I’d take one out of my wallet, peel off the backing, and apply it. (Security cameras every three feet were not a thing back then.) They got regularly removed, and regularly reapplied. I like to think of them as the I DID THIS! sticker of the Reagan years.
One of my favorite shops was Mark’s Hot Bagels, in Cincinnati, although I was there only once. Among the many signs on the wall was a picture of a 1911 with the words “Firearms welcome. Please keep concealed unless the need otherwise arises, in which case judicious aim will be appreciated.“
The food was pretty good too. And under reliable kashrut supervision.
In some states the same statute that authorizes the No Firearms sign states that by posting a sign, the establishment assumes no liability for the safety of anyone on the premises. If it’s in the statute they don’t need to put the disclaimer on the sign itself.
And only if they agree you can carry any number of revolvers on you for self-defense. That way you can “reload” very quickly.
Sure why not? Though it mist be said that a sidearm is a defensive weapon and too many ‘tacti-cool’ wannabes seem to believe a particular model turns them into John Wick. IMO the purpose of a carry weapon is get you/your own family out of a dangerous situation not to play hero for everyone else. Some whacko shooter comes in the front of the grocery store firing then get to the back exit, bring as many people as will immediately listen to reason with you and yours as you move them to safety.
I don’t even currently own a firearm, but…..
For my Birthday this year all I want is for the SCOTUS to tell California (and hence my home state of NY) that their overreach in restricting the common sales of 20-30 round mags is unconstitutional.
I’ve never understood the mind set that believes laws restricting the 2A rights of non-criminals will be a law that actual gun criminals will obey.
Then, for Christmas please let Trump put forth this judge’s name for higher judicial office.
My birthday I want lots more ammo.
What do I want for the country’s birthday? A SCOTUS that tears inferior judges limb-from-limb when they so clearly violate the Constitution that even Kagan can see it. I want to see SCOTUS declare that “good behavior” does not include a non-textual and non-contextual interpretation of the Constitution and clearly written laws. That would be a great present for the country.
Bonta, or, whoever was doing oral argument on behalf of California, appears to be a typically emasculated, nerdy and leftist soy-boy. It’s tough even watching even a few seconds of such a “man” displaying his ignorance and prevarications in front of an Appellate Court.
Nine bullets is a good number, typical 00 buckshot load, there is a tactical shotgun that holds 13 :), I opted for a bullpup with 10 round magazines. It is a nice self defense weapon.
Replacement fur Pam ‘ weak on 2a/FOT” blondie?€
You can not use the term “reasoning” with these Leftist loons, I affectionately call psycho Commies. They don’t reason. They use emotion to conspire, plot and plan attacks on the Constitution and the American way of life. It is their lack of reasoning that makes them far more dangerous than any number of bullets you can load into a magazine.
If you load the magazine with just bullets it’s not going to fire. You’ll get better results w/cartridges instead.
Judge VanDyke must be the only federal judge in the U.S. with an AK-47 mounted on the wall in his chambers, LOL.
If a magazine is an accessory, not part of the actual firearm, and if Californian law limits their size to 10 rounds, would it be possible to manufacture a magazine that stacks like Lego bricks? I admit I’m unsure if the mechanics would be possible, but 5×10 round magazines would be equivalent to a 50 round magazine, but legal under Californian law, no?
Leave a Comment