Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s call for the Supreme Court to start handing out “benchslaps” is more than colorful language—it’s a candid admission that his own circuit has become a serial offender when it comes to Second Amendment rights. By publicly flagging the Ninth’s pattern of upholding restrictions that conflict with Bruen’s text-and-history test, VanDyke is essentially inviting the justices to treat his colleagues the way they once treated the Ninth on immigration and qualified-immunity cases: with swift, pointed reversals that leave little room for creative reinterpretation. That kind of intra-circuit candor is rare, and it signals that even judges on the left-leaning West Coast bench see the current gun docket as unsustainable.

For the 2A community the message is clear: the Supreme Court’s recent willingness to take more gun cases is already reshaping lower-court behavior, and VanDyke’s plea accelerates that pressure. Every time the justices grant cert in a Ninth Circuit carry or magazine case, they not only correct one bad ruling but also send a deterrent signal to other circuits tempted to stretch Bruen’s “sensitive places” or “sensitive persons” language into nationwide disarmament zones. The practical result is fewer manufactured factual findings and more honest applications of the historical record—exactly what gun owners in California, Hawaii, and the Pacific Northwest have been waiting for since Bruen.

Longer term, VanDyke’s comments hint at a broader realignment: once the Supreme Court normalizes “benchslap” reversals, the incentive structure for district and circuit judges flips. Instead of betting that creative distinctions will survive, judges will have to weigh the cost of being publicly corrected against the political satisfaction of upholding restrictions. That shift doesn’t guarantee victory in every case, but it dramatically raises the cost of resistance and gives the grassroots litigation strategy more leverage than it has enjoyed in decades.