The video at top left is a brilliant “dissent video” by Judge Lawrence VanDyke of the Ninth Circuit, part of his recent dissent in Duncan v Bonta. (Video below that is my daughter Ayn, who is now finishing up her first year at University of Florida School of Law.)
Judge VanDyke resided awhile in Nevada and i’m guessing he’s maybe Front Sight trained, and he certainly competes actively. Very refreshing to see.
Watching the video reminds me of an evening my wife and i spent at Chief Judge Alex Kozinski’s home where he hosted a meeting of the Federalist Society. After speaking with the Chief Judge about our Second Amendment he brought me into his den and pulled from his coat a small titanium revolver he had concealed and handed it to me. So light! I was impressed and ended up getting something similar by Ruger, as a backup gun. Pretty sure that was his backup, too.
Anyway, Judge VanDyke’s dissent video is well worth the watch. His visual approach is really the best way to explain why the majority’s view of standard (a/k/a “high”) capacity magazines as not being “arms” entitled to Second Amendment protection, because they can be swapped out for something less “dangerous”, is unworkable as the same rationale could be applied to almost any part of the firearm, allowing that part to be swapped with something less “dangerous” and therefore also less effective for self-defense.
