US judge films video of himself loading handguns in chambers to protest California court ruling
The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that the law was permissible under the Second Amendment because large-capacity magazines are not considered 'arms' or 'protected accessories.'
Even if they were, 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,' the opinion stated.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke disagreed, and included a link to a video of himself posted on YouTube in his dissent.
'This is the first video like this that I've ever made,' VanDyke said. 'I share this because a rudimentary understanding of how guns are made, sold, used, and commonly modified makes obvious why California's proposed test and the one my colleagues are adopting today simply does not work.'
In the video, VanDyke handles several guns in his chambers and demonstrates how they are loaded and fired. He also shows high-capacity magazines and argues that they are no different from other gun accessories that could be added to a firearm to make it more dangerous. Under the majority's logic, he said, that would allow the government to pick and choose any of them to be banned.
Judge Marsha S. Berzon criticized VanDyke's video in a separate opinion, saying he was including 'facts outside the record' and was, in essence, appointing himself an expert witness in the case.
The law has remained in effect as the state appealed a 2023 ruling by a district court judge in San Diego that it was unconstitutional. The ruling was in response to legal action filed by four individuals and the California Rifle & Pistol Association challenging the law's constitutionality under the Second Amendment.
The majority opinion judges said their decision to uphold the law is in line with a Supreme Court ruling in 2022 that set a new standard that relies more on the historical tradition of gun regulation rather than public interests, including safety.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta praised the appeals court's decision.
'This commonsense restriction on how many rounds a gunman can fire before they must pause to reload has been identified as a critical intervention to limit a lone shooter's capacity to turn shootings into mass casualty attacks,' Bonta said in a statement. 'Let me be clear, this law saves lives.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
15 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Going online in Russia can be frustrating, complicated and even dangerous
TALLINN, Estonia — YouTube videos that won't load. A visit to a popular independent media website that produces only a blank page. Cellphone internet connections that are down for hours or days. Going online in Russia can be frustrating, complicated and even dangerous. It's not a network glitch but a deliberate, multipronged and long-term effort by authorities to bring the internet under the Kremlin's full control. Authorities adopted restrictive laws and banned websites and platforms that won't comply. Technology has been perfected to monitor and manipulate online traffic. While it's still possible to circumvent restrictions by using virtual private network apps, those are routinely blocked, too. Authorities further restricted internet access this summer with widespread shutdowns of cellphone internet connections and adopting a law punishing users for searching for content they deem illicit. They also are threatening to go after the popular WhatsApp platform while rolling out a new 'national' messaging app that's widely expected to be heavily monitored. President Vladimir Putin urged the government to 'stifle' foreign internet services and ordered officials to assemble a list of platforms from 'unfriendly' states that should be restricted. Experts and rights advocates told The Associated Press that the scale and effectiveness of the restrictions are alarming. Authorities seem more adept at it now, compared with previous, largely futile efforts to restrict online activities, and they're edging closer to isolating the internet in Russia. Human Rights Watch researcher Anastasiia Kruope describes Moscow's approach to reining in the internet as 'death by a thousand cuts.' 'Bit by bit, you're trying to come to a point where everything is controlled.' Kremlin efforts to control what Russians do, read or say online dates to 2011-12, when the internet was used to challenge authority. Independent media outlets bloomed, and anti-government demonstrations that were coordinated online erupted after disputed parliamentary elections and Putin's decision to run again for president. Russia began adopting regulations tightening internet controls. Some blocked websites; others required providers to store call records and messages, sharing it with security services if needed, and install equipment allowing authorities to control and cut off traffic. Companies like Google or Facebook were pressured to store user data on Russian servers, to no avail, and plans were announced for a 'sovereign internet' that could be cut off from the rest of the world. Russia's popular Facebook-like social media platform VK, founded by Pavel Durov long before he launched the Telegram messaging app, came under the control of Kremlin-friendly companies. Russia tried to block Telegram between 2018-20 but failed. Prosecutions for social media posts and comments became common, showing that authorities were closely watching the online space. Still, experts had dismissed Kremlin efforts to rein in the internet as futile, arguing Russia was far from building something akin to China's 'Great Firewall,' which Beijing uses to block foreign websites. After Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the government blocked major social media like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, as well as Signal and a few other messaging apps. VPNs also were targeted, making it harder to reach restricted websites. YouTube access was disrupted last summer in what experts called deliberate throttling by authorities. The Kremlin blamed YouTube owner Google for not maintaining its hardware in Russia. The platform has been wildly popular in Russia, both for entertainment and for voices critical of the Kremlin, like the late opposition leader Alexei Navalny. Cloudflare, an internet infrastructure provider, said in June that websites using its services were being throttled in Russia. Independent news site Mediazona reported that several other popular Western hosting providers also are being inhibited. Cyber lawyer Sarkis Darbinyan, founder of Russian internet freedom group Roskomsvoboda, said authorities have been trying to push businesses to migrate to Russian hosting providers that can be controlled. He estimates about half of all Russian websites are powered by foreign hosting and infrastructure providers, many offering better quality and price than domestic equivalents. A 'huge number' of global websites and platforms use those providers, he said, so cutting them off means those websites 'automatically become inaccessible' in Russia too. Another concerning trend is the consolidation of Russia's internet providers and companies that manage IP addresses, according to a July 30 Human Rights Watch report. Last year, authorities raised the cost of obtaining an internet provider license from 7,500 rubles (about $90) to 1 million rubles (over $12,300), and state data shows that more than half of all IP addresses in Russia are managed by seven large companies, with Rostelecom, Russia's state telephone and internet giant, accounting for 25%. The Kremlin is striving 'to control the internet space in Russia, and to censor things, to manipulate the traffic,' said HRW's Kruope. A new Russian law criminalized online searches for broadly defined 'extremist' materials. That could include LGBTQ+ content, opposition groups, some songs by performers critical of the Kremlin — and Navalny's memoir, which was designated as extremist last week. Right advocates say it's a step toward punishing consumers — not just providers — like in Belarus, where people are routinely fined or jailed for reading or following certain independent media outlets. Stanislav Seleznev, cyber security expert and lawyer with the Net Freedom rights group, doesn't expect ubiquitous prosecutions, since tracking individual online searches in a country of 146 million remains a tall order. But even a limited number of cases could scare many from restricted content, he said. Another major step could be blocking WhatsApp, which monitoring service Mediascope said had over 97 million monthly users in April. WhatsApp 'should prepare to leave the Russian market,' said lawmaker Anton Gorelkin, and a new 'national' messenger, MAX, developed by social media company VK, would take its place. Telegram probably won't be restricted, he said. MAX, promoted as a one-stop shop for messaging, online government services, making payments and more, was rolled out for beta tests but has yet to attract a wide following. Over 2 million people registered by July, the Tass news agency reported. Its terms and conditions say it will share user data with authorities upon request, and a new law stipulates its preinstallation in all smartphones sold in Russia. State institutions, officials and businesses are actively encouraged to move communications and blogs to MAX. Anastasiya Zhyrmont of the Access Now digital rights group said both Telegram and WhatsApp were disrupted in Russia in July in what could be a test of how potential blockages would affect internet infrastructure. It wouldn't be uncommon. In recent years, authorities regularly tested cutting off the internet from the rest of the world, sometimes resulting in outages in some regions. Darbinyan believes the only way to make people use MAX is to 'shut down, stifle' every Western alternative. 'But again, habits ... do not change in a year or two. And these habits acquired over decades, when the internet was fast and free,' he said. Government media and internet regulator Roskomnadzor uses more sophisticated methods, analyzing all web traffic and identifying what it can block or choke off, Darbinyan said. It's been helped by 'years of perfecting the technology, years of taking over and understanding the architecture of the internet and the players,' as well as Western sanctions and companies leaving the Russian market since 2022, said Kruope of Human Rights Watch. Russia is 'not there yet' in isolating its internet from the rest of the world, Darbinyan said, but Kremlin efforts are 'bringing it closer.' Litvinova writes for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court formally asked to overturn landmark same-sex marriage ruling
Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, the justices this fall will consider for the first time whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn that decision. Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for six days in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple on religious grounds, is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages plus $260,000 for attorneys fees. In a petition for writ of certiorari filed last month, Davis argues First Amendment protection for free exercise of religion immunizes her from personal liability for the denial of marriage licenses. More fundamentally, she claims the high court's decision in Obergefell v Hodges -- extending marriage rights for same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment's due process protections -- was "egregiously wrong." "The mistake must be corrected," wrote Davis' attorney Mathew Staver in the petition. He calls Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Obergefell "legal fiction." The petition appears to mark the first time since 2015 that the court has been formally asked to overturn the landmark marriage decision. Davis is seen as one of the only Americans currently with legal standing to bring a challenge to the precedent. "If there ever was a case of exceptional importance," Staver wrote, "the first individual in the Republic's history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it." Lower courts have dismissed Davis' claims and most legal experts consider her bid a long shot. A federal appeals court panel concluded earlier this year that the former clerk "cannot raise the First Amendment as a defense because she is being held liable for state action, which the First Amendment does not protect." Davis, as the Rowan County Clerk in 2015, was the sole authority tasked with issuing marriage licenses on behalf of the government under state law. "Not a single judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals showed any interest in Davis's rehearing petition, and we are confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis's arguments do not merit further attention," said William Powell, attorney for David Ermold and David Moore, the now-married Kentucky couple that sued Davis for damages, in a statement to ABC News. A renewed campaign to reverse legal precedent Davis' appeal to the Supreme Court comes as conservative opponents of marriage rights for same-sex couples pursue a renewed campaign to reverse legal precedent and allow each state to set its own policy. At the time Obergefell was decided in 2015, 35 states had statutory or constitutional bans on same-sex marriages, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Only eight states had enacted laws explicitly allowing the unions. So far in 2025, at least nine states have either introduced legislation aimed at blocking new marriage licenses for LGBTQ people or passed resolutions urging the Supreme Court to reverse Obergefell at the earliest opportunity, according to the advocacy group Lambda Legal. In June, the Southern Baptist Convention -- the nation's largest Protestant Christian denomination -- overwhelmingly voted to make "overturning of laws and court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, that defy God's design for marriage and family" a top priority. Support for equal marriage rights softening While a strong majority of Americans favor equal marriage rights, support appears to have softened in recent years, according to Gallup -- 60% of Americans supported same-sex marriages in 2015, rising to 70% support in 2025, but that level has plateaued since 2020. Among Republicans, support has notably dipped over the past decade, down from 55% in 2021 to 41% this year, Gallup found. Davis' petition argues the issue of marriage should be treated the same way the court handled the issue of abortion in its 2022 decision to overturn Roe v Wade. She zeroes in on Justice Clarence Thomas' concurrence in that case, in which he explicitly called for revisiting Obergefell. The justices "should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," Thomas wrote at the time, referring to the landmark decisions dealing with a fundamental right to privacy, due process and equal protection rights. "It is hard to say where things will go, but this will be a long slog considering how popular same-sex marriage is now," said Josh Blackman, a prominent conservative constitutional scholar and professor at South Texas College of Law. Blackman predicts many members of the Supreme Court's conservative majority would want prospective challenges to Obergefell to percolate in lower courts before revisiting the debate. The court is expected to formally consider Davis' petition this fall during a private conference when the justices discuss which cases to add to their docket. If the case is accepted, it would likely be scheduled for oral argument next spring and decided by the end of June 2026. The court could also decline the case, allowing a lower court ruling to stand and avoid entirely the request to revisit Obergefell. "Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett seem wildly uninterested. Maybe Justice Neil Gorsuch, too," said Sarah Isgur, an ABC News legal analyst and host of the legal podcast Advisory Opinions. "There is no world in which the court takes the case as a straight gay marriage case," Isgur added. "It would have to come up as a lower court holding that Obergefell binds judges to accept some other kind of non-traditional marital arrangement." MORE: 20 years of marriage rights for same-sex couples. Research disputes apocalyptic fears Ruling wouldn't invalidate existing marriages If the ruling were to be overturned at some point in the future, it would not invalidate marriages already performed, legal experts have pointed out. The 2022 Respect for Marriage Act requires the federal government and all states to recognize legal marriages of same-sex and interracial couples performed in any state -- even if there is a future change in the law. Davis first appealed the Supreme Court in 2019 seeking to have the damages suit against her tossed out, but her petition was rejected. Conservative Justices Thomas and Samuel Alito concurred with the decision at the time. "This petition implicates important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell, but it does not cleanly present them," Thomas wrote in a statement. Many LGBTQ advocates say they are apprehensive about the shifting legal and political landscape around marriage rights. There are an estimated 823,000 married same-sex couples in the U.S., including 591,000 that wed after the Supreme Court decision in June 2015, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School. Nearly one in five of those married couples is parenting a child under 18. Since the Obergefell decision, the makeup of the Supreme Court has shifted rightward, now including three appointees of President Donald Trump and a 6-justice conservative supermajority. Chief Justice John Roberts, among the current members of the court who dissented in Obergefell a decade ago, sharply criticized the ruling at the time as "an act of will, not legal judgment" with "no basis in the Constitution." He also warned then that it "creates serious questions about religious liberty." Davis invoked Roberts' words in her petition to the high court, hopeful that at least four justices will vote to accept her case and hear arguments next year. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Gun rights YouTuber Brandon Herrera to challenge U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales again in GOP primary
WASHINGTON — Pro-gun activist Brandon Herrera launched another primary challenge against Rep. Tony Gonzales this weekend, aiming to replace the three-term incumbent in Texas' 23rd Congressional District after narrowly losing in a runoff last year. Herrera, who came within 400 votes of ousting Gonzales in the 2024 primary, is once again positioning himself to the right of the incumbent. In a 10-minute video launching his campaign Saturday, Herrera railed against the Washington establishment and promised to buck party leaders if given a seat in the House. 'They will attack me because they're afraid of people like me,' he said, 'people they know they can't control.' The race is promising to shape up as yet another proxy war between the more centrist Gonzales and the right-wing, fire-breather Herrera. A third candidate, Cotulla rancher Susan Storey Rubio, is also vying for the nomination in the far-reaching district, which stretches from San Antonio to the outskirts of El Paso. Gonzales drew criticism from the right last cycle for his support of legislation tightening gun safety laws in the wake of the Robb Elementary shooting in Uvalde, which is located in the district. The attack became a centerpiece of Herrera's campaign. In the last primary, Herrera leveraged his large social media following as 'the AK Guy' to rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars from grassroots donors and Second Amendment activists. His candidacy unnerved some fellow Republicans due to the edgy humor he displayed on his YouTube channel and in numerous podcast appearances. He has made quips about veteran suicide, the Holocaust and child abuse that many moderate Republicans viewed as flippant. His YouTube channel boasts 4.4 million subscribers, and his election announcement garnered nearly a million views within 48 hours. But Herrera's online star power was not enough to overcome the deep pockets backing Gonzales last cycle. The incumbent raised $4.5 million ahead of the runoff, thanks in part to influential party figures from Gov. Greg Abbott to Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who closed ranks behind Gonzales and endorsed him. Gonzales' campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Shape the future of Texas at the 15th annual , happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin! We bring together Texas' most inspiring thinkers, leaders and innovators to discuss the issues that matter to you. Get tickets now and join us this November. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase. Solve the daily Crossword
