I've long thought/seen things the same as Judge VanDyke. It goes much further though, and I expect he too understands. What he/we are dealing with is Ludditism, nothing more. Their goal is to continue to reduce the technological advancements in firearms step by step; VanDyke discusses it when he references break action single shot rifles. However, it goes even further, at its end they would ban rifled barrels and cartridge ammunition; this is the argument of those that believe that only muskets are covered because of the date of authorship but most of those people dont have the intellectual sophistication to reach the more complete reasoning. In the end they have you armed with that musket and tell you that you still have the right to self-defense, if you cant manage to do so with the implement(s) that we have permitted, well, that's on you.
To modify a quote, the law, in its majestic equality, forbids gangs of young strong men and little old ladies alike from using modern weapons to defend themselves.
Following the arguments and the rationale, it is absolutely possible to eventually ban semiautos in effect, if not in fact. Continually ratched down the number of rounds until you get to the minimum required for semiautomatic function: 1 +1 in the chamber. You now have a technically constitutionally protected semiauto with a capacity of two rounds. But who is going to want the cost and mechanical complexity associated with semiauto if you only get two shots? Nobody. They're going to buy a revolver or a two shot derringer or something.
The irony here is that, from a functional perspective, a semiauto is functionally identical to a double-action revolver of the same capacity. One shot for each pull of the trigger.
We also get into the weeds about actual capacity. Recall the NW Safe Act originally sought to reduce mag capacity to seven, which is certainly an argument for the slippery slope, but nobody anywhere has ever explained the rationale for ten rounds, or even seven. I am 100% convinced that there actually is no rationale whatsoever for ten rounds. It was a capacity plucked from the air because ten is a simple single syllable word that sounds official (thanks George Carlin).
The whole "arm" vs "not-arm" situation is exemplified in it's most silly form in the recent ruling on suppressors. NFA defines them as "FIrearms", the GCA bans them from importation, Export is regulated by ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations), but the DOJ argued (successfully) that they are not protected because they aren't really arms.
It's a good question. The source sometimes seems to be William Ruger's comment that Nobody Needs More Than Ten Rounds.
(At other times he said fifteen, which lines up with some states and some European countries having fifteen as the rule and is a fairly normal magazine size for a compact-size 9mm pistol.)
Seven might be from the 1911 or the sense that it's a small upgrade over a revolver?
A new angle for magazine capacity may be coming from state hunting laws.
Take the case of Colorado. Colorado's legislature is trying to ram though SB25-003, which started out as the third attempt in a row on a "semi-auto weapons with detachable magazines" (aka "assault weapons" and "weapons of war") ban, but now morphed into a license to purchase such weapons.
They've come up with an unsustainable and creative ways to funding and administer such a law, in part because county sheriffs were so utterly opposed to the bill (they administer concealed carry permits) so they've troubled the state's parks and wildlife division with most of the administrative burden.
Originally, they planned on using a pool of money funded in part by Pittman-Robertson money but they sneakily removed that in a last minute amendment before all of us showed up to testify in opposition at the House Finance Committee. That made a bunch of us, many of whom drove to the State Capitol to testify in person, look like we were testifying on something that was not really there.
The sponsors of the bill (it was allegedly written by Everytown and/or Mom's Demand) insist the purpose of this bill is to get serious about "high capacity magazines" (>15 have been banned since 2014) and one sponsor in particular "as a firearm owner" insists that nobody needs more than five rounds at a time.
He (see link for his crap takes: https://freestatecolorado.com/lehnerz-sb25-003/) hasn't blatantly admitted such but I suspect he got that number (five) from the magazine capacity from big game hunting regulations in the state. He's also a big "the second amendment is for hunting" and "it says wElL-rEgulAtEd" kind of guy.
That bill sponsor isn't even the worse of them.
Yesterday in the day-long hearing on the House floor, another representative said hunters shouldn't even have more than one shot because it's unethical to use multiple shots to kill an animal and anyone who isn't an excellent one shot = kill marksman shouldn't be hunting.
Naturally, a lot of hunters pushed back against this bill, so as part of the license to purchase modifications, they added a bunch of semi-autos with detachable magazines to an exception list but most of these models have little or no availability of "high capacity" magazines either because they're older models or they're marketed specifically for hunting.
Thank you! All the mainstream write-ups on this have been pathetic, short and 100% focused on VanDyke and not the substance. I suppose that should be expected.
I appreciate the distinction between off-record facts and off-record logic that Justice VanDyke draws. He eloquently analyzes why the judges of the majority reacted to his video.
Neither magazines (detachable or fixed), nor serial numbers or importation marks, nor rounds of ammunition, nor triggers, nor barrels, nor threaded barrels, nor barrel shrouds, nor pistol grips, nor forward grips, nor adjustable stocks, nor thumbhole stocks, nor muzzle devices, nor pistol braces are specifically mentioned in the Second Amendment.
Neither are they mentioned in Heller, McDonald or Bruen. But without a Right to “keep and bear” triggers, barrels, threaded barrels, barrel shrouds, pistol grips, forward grips, adjustable stocks, thumbhole stocks, muzzle devices, pistol braces, arms missing serial numbers or importation marks, or ammunition and the magazines that hold ammunition, the Second Amendment right would be meaningless.
I've long thought/seen things the same as Judge VanDyke. It goes much further though, and I expect he too understands. What he/we are dealing with is Ludditism, nothing more. Their goal is to continue to reduce the technological advancements in firearms step by step; VanDyke discusses it when he references break action single shot rifles. However, it goes even further, at its end they would ban rifled barrels and cartridge ammunition; this is the argument of those that believe that only muskets are covered because of the date of authorship but most of those people dont have the intellectual sophistication to reach the more complete reasoning. In the end they have you armed with that musket and tell you that you still have the right to self-defense, if you cant manage to do so with the implement(s) that we have permitted, well, that's on you.
To modify a quote, the law, in its majestic equality, forbids gangs of young strong men and little old ladies alike from using modern weapons to defend themselves.
Following the arguments and the rationale, it is absolutely possible to eventually ban semiautos in effect, if not in fact. Continually ratched down the number of rounds until you get to the minimum required for semiautomatic function: 1 +1 in the chamber. You now have a technically constitutionally protected semiauto with a capacity of two rounds. But who is going to want the cost and mechanical complexity associated with semiauto if you only get two shots? Nobody. They're going to buy a revolver or a two shot derringer or something.
The irony here is that, from a functional perspective, a semiauto is functionally identical to a double-action revolver of the same capacity. One shot for each pull of the trigger.
We also get into the weeds about actual capacity. Recall the NW Safe Act originally sought to reduce mag capacity to seven, which is certainly an argument for the slippery slope, but nobody anywhere has ever explained the rationale for ten rounds, or even seven. I am 100% convinced that there actually is no rationale whatsoever for ten rounds. It was a capacity plucked from the air because ten is a simple single syllable word that sounds official (thanks George Carlin).
The whole "arm" vs "not-arm" situation is exemplified in it's most silly form in the recent ruling on suppressors. NFA defines them as "FIrearms", the GCA bans them from importation, Export is regulated by ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations), but the DOJ argued (successfully) that they are not protected because they aren't really arms.
Very well said
It's a good question. The source sometimes seems to be William Ruger's comment that Nobody Needs More Than Ten Rounds.
(At other times he said fifteen, which lines up with some states and some European countries having fifteen as the rule and is a fairly normal magazine size for a compact-size 9mm pistol.)
Seven might be from the 1911 or the sense that it's a small upgrade over a revolver?
A new angle for magazine capacity may be coming from state hunting laws.
Take the case of Colorado. Colorado's legislature is trying to ram though SB25-003, which started out as the third attempt in a row on a "semi-auto weapons with detachable magazines" (aka "assault weapons" and "weapons of war") ban, but now morphed into a license to purchase such weapons.
https://www.cohousedems.com/news/house-passes-sb25-003
They've come up with an unsustainable and creative ways to funding and administer such a law, in part because county sheriffs were so utterly opposed to the bill (they administer concealed carry permits) so they've troubled the state's parks and wildlife division with most of the administrative burden.
https://wethesecondcolorado.com/sb25-003-money-shell-game-tabor-cpw-cbi-the-wildlife-cash-fund/
Originally, they planned on using a pool of money funded in part by Pittman-Robertson money but they sneakily removed that in a last minute amendment before all of us showed up to testify in opposition at the House Finance Committee. That made a bunch of us, many of whom drove to the State Capitol to testify in person, look like we were testifying on something that was not really there.
The sponsors of the bill (it was allegedly written by Everytown and/or Mom's Demand) insist the purpose of this bill is to get serious about "high capacity magazines" (>15 have been banned since 2014) and one sponsor in particular "as a firearm owner" insists that nobody needs more than five rounds at a time.
He (see link for his crap takes: https://freestatecolorado.com/lehnerz-sb25-003/) hasn't blatantly admitted such but I suspect he got that number (five) from the magazine capacity from big game hunting regulations in the state. He's also a big "the second amendment is for hunting" and "it says wElL-rEgulAtEd" kind of guy.
That bill sponsor isn't even the worse of them.
Yesterday in the day-long hearing on the House floor, another representative said hunters shouldn't even have more than one shot because it's unethical to use multiple shots to kill an animal and anyone who isn't an excellent one shot = kill marksman shouldn't be hunting.
Naturally, a lot of hunters pushed back against this bill, so as part of the license to purchase modifications, they added a bunch of semi-autos with detachable magazines to an exception list but most of these models have little or no availability of "high capacity" magazines either because they're older models or they're marketed specifically for hunting.
The list is on page 5 here: https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025A/bills/2025a_003_rer.pdf
Thank you! All the mainstream write-ups on this have been pathetic, short and 100% focused on VanDyke and not the substance. I suppose that should be expected.
Like the LA Times, talk about poisoning the well with that headline
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-03-21/trump-appointed-judge-dissents-in-major-california-ammo-case-with-gun-filled-youtube-video
I appreciate the distinction between off-record facts and off-record logic that Justice VanDyke draws. He eloquently analyzes why the judges of the majority reacted to his video.
Shall not be infringed.
Neither magazines (detachable or fixed), nor serial numbers or importation marks, nor rounds of ammunition, nor triggers, nor barrels, nor threaded barrels, nor barrel shrouds, nor pistol grips, nor forward grips, nor adjustable stocks, nor thumbhole stocks, nor muzzle devices, nor pistol braces are specifically mentioned in the Second Amendment.
Neither are they mentioned in Heller, McDonald or Bruen. But without a Right to “keep and bear” triggers, barrels, threaded barrels, barrel shrouds, pistol grips, forward grips, adjustable stocks, thumbhole stocks, muzzle devices, pistol braces, arms missing serial numbers or importation marks, or ammunition and the magazines that hold ammunition, the Second Amendment right would be meaningless.
Per AP, he was “loading” the handguns.
SMFH, they didn’t even watch the video.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/21/us/california-judge-gun-video-opinion-dissent/index.html
They must have been some of those fully semi automatic guns 🙃