The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld California's ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines in a 7-4 decision, ruling that such magazines are not considered 'arms' or 'protected accessories' under the Second Amendment. This decision reverses a previous ruling that found the state law unconstitutional. In a highly unusual move, Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a Trump appointee, recorded an 18-minute video dissent on YouTube from his chambers, where he handled several firearms to illustrate his disagreement with the court's decision. VanDyke argued that the majority's understanding of firearms was a 'factual fantasy' and that large-capacity magazines are integral to the functioning of firearms, thus should be protected under the Second Amendment. Judge Marsha Berzon, along with other judges, criticized VanDyke's video, calling it 'wildly improper' and stating that he had essentially appointed himself as an expert witness in the case. Berzon's opinion was joined by five other judges, highlighting the controversy surrounding VanDyke's approach to making a 'conceptual point' about firearms through his video dissent.