An appellate judge took an unconventional approach to dissenting against the court’s decision to uphold California’s ban on gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. In a video shared online, Judge Lawrence VanDyke of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit demonstrated the disassembly of multiple firearms, criticizing his colleagues for what he deemed a lack of understanding of firearms mechanics. VanDyke argued that large-capacity magazines should be protected under the Second Amendment, considering them functional parts rather than mere accessories. He highlighted the significance of these magazines in enhancing a gun’s performance. VanDyke’s dissent included the visual demonstration, as he believed it to be a more impactful way to present his arguments. Notably, the firearms featured in the video were rendered inoperable for safety purposes.
Following the court’s decision, which supported the ban on large-capacity gun magazines, VanDyke and other dissenting judges contended that such magazines are widely used across the country and are commonly sold with firearms. They expressed their disagreement with the majority opinion, asserting that the ban infringed upon Second Amendment rights. Judge Marsha Berzon, in her concurrence with the majority opinion, criticized VanDyke’s video presentation, suggesting that it was inappropriate for him to act as an unofficial expert witness without following standard procedural guidelines for presenting evidence.
VanDyke, a nominee of President Trump who was confirmed in December 2019, faced scrutiny for his unusual dissent tactics. While VanDyke’s supporters applauded his efforts to defend Second Amendment rights, critics questioned the propriety of his actions and warned against setting a precedent for similar behavior in future legal proceedings.
