Lost 7-4 in the 9th Circuit en banc court regarding California's magazine ban.  They basically said magazines are not considered arms protected by the 2A.  Next stop is to request an appeal to SCOTUS.   This is based on a final decision by the district court so has a good chance of being taken up by SCOTUS.  This lawsuit was filed in 2017 with preliminary injunctions and final decisions getting appealed, then restarting again in district court after Bruen, to where we are now.

Though the sale and importation of magazines over 10 rounds is prohibited, CA is not enforcing the magazine possession law due to not knowing which magazines were bought during "freedom week" where the mag ban was lifted for a week and millions of magazines poured into California after the district court order took effect.

Hawaii has it's own lawsuit Abbott v Connors which is still on hold pending Duncan.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/20/23-55805.pdf

What the 9th is saying is that a 1 round magazine would be acceptable and not violate the 2A.

Obama and Clinton judges on the 9th voted to keep Trump era judges from voting on this. Long story short, there should have been a new "random" draw of judges (this is the norm), but there wasn't.  Because this was heard in 2021, most of the Trump appointed judges didn't get a chance to vote on this case.

**Add

Bascially 5 of the 11 judges on the panel wouldn't be qualified to be on it.  Guess how these 5 voted....

https://youtu.be/DMC7Ntd4d4c?si=B4o3FeCggmoDhCm8

Judge Van Dyke's highly unusual video dissent, showing him handling handguns,

https://youtu.be/DMC7Ntd4d4c?si=B4o3FeCggmoDhCm8

Judge Van Dyke's highly unusual video dissent, showing him handling handguns,

seems like a gun guy.

gee whiz, youtube might ban him, just because.

First time I got a gun lesson from a judge