California – U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke channeled his inner Youtuber on Thursday morning when he released an 18-minute video demonstrating the disassembly of multiple firearms as part of his dissenting opinion against the court’s decision to uphold California’s ban on high-capacity magazines.
The 7-4 ruling by the 9th Circuit affirmed that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are not considered “arms” or “protected accessories” under the Second Amendment. However, Judge VanDyke, in his dissent, argued that these magazines are essential functional parts of firearms and thus, should be protected.
In the video, VanDyke asserted that his colleagues demonstrated a “basic misunderstanding of how firearms work.” He aimed to visually illustrate his argument that large-capacity magazines enhance firearm functionality, contending they are not mere accessories. He stated that the firearms used in the video were rendered inoperable for safety precautions.
VanDyke explained that he chose to present his arguments visually, believing it would be “obviously much more effective” than written explanations. He stated that the magazines in question are “the most common magazines in the country” and are sold with most guns.
The majority opinion, however, maintained that the California law banning these magazines is constitutional. In her concurring opinion, Judge Marsha Berzon sharply criticized VanDyke’s video, accusing him of “in essence appoint[ing] himself as an expert witness in the case.” Berzon argued that VanDyke presented “a factual presentation with the express aim of convincing the readers of his view of the facts without complying with any of the procedural safeguards that usually apply to experts and their testimony, while simultaneously serving on the panel deciding the case.”
Berzon further labeled the video “wildly improper” and expressed concern that it could set a precedent for similar unorthodox presentations in future cases. She emphasized the need to address this “genre” to prevent its proliferation.
Judge VanDyke, a Trump nominee confirmed in December 2019 by a 51-44 Senate vote, has drawn significant attention with his unconventional approach to judicial dissent. The video has sparked debate about the appropriate use of visual aids in legal arguments and the role of judges as experts in technical matters. The incident highlights the ongoing legal battles surrounding gun control and the interpretation of the Second Amendment.
