Judge VanDyke made a YouTube video to accompany his dissent in Duncan v. Bonta, the Second Amendment case in which a Ninth Circuit en banc panel upheld California’s ban on handgun magazines over 10 bullets. Judge VanDyke’s video shows him disassembling a gun, comparing accessories, and using a portion of oral argument to claim his point wasn’t being heard. The issue: If a magazine is just an accessory not entitled to Second Amendment protection, then basically the entire gun is just a bunch of unprotected accessories.

Jeff and Tim react:

• Can a federal judge issue a TikTok-style dissent? If so, can lawyers start footnoting their briefs with YouTube links?
• Does a video “illustration” that relies on props cross the line into new fact-finding? Or is it just illustrative of a legal point about distinguish an “arm” from its “accessories”?
• Are judges likely to do more of these dissents? Maybe explainer videos would be useful in patent cases (comparing iPhone and Samsung phone designs), or product defects, or police excessive-force cases?
• And practical questions: Will the video—and transcript—show up in Westlaw searches? How do you cite to something side during a dissent video?

We also discuss a California Supreme Court ruling clarifying that malicious prosecution claims, even against lawyers, get the full two-year statute of limitations. Not the shorter one-year.

And finally, an update from the J&J v. Trump litigation saga: a judge opens with a warning about the “priceless” nature of attorney integrity. The administration then invoked state secrets. Contempt proceedings now loom. Stay tuned.

Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.

Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.

Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.

Other items discussed in the episode:

• Video Dissent: https://bsky.app/profile/rmfifthcircuit.bsky.social/post/3lkt7yftgqc2g