Published: March 22, 2025
San Francisco, CA — In an unprecedented move, Judge Lawrence VanDyke of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals released a video dissent demonstrating firearm mechanics from his chambers. This action followed the court’s decision to uphold California’s ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines.
The Court’s Decision
On March 21, 2025, the 9th Circuit ruled 7-4 to maintain California’s prohibition on magazines holding more than ten rounds, a measure enacted in 2016 to enhance public safety by reducing mass shooting casualties. The majority opinion stated that such magazines are “most useful in military service” and not protected by the Second Amendment.
VanDyke’s Video Dissent
Dissenting, Judge VanDyke recorded an 18-minute video in his chambers, where he, donned in judicial robes, handled and disassembled multiple firearms. He criticized the majority’s understanding of firearms, asserting that their lack of familiarity led to flawed legal reasoning. VanDyke argued that magazines are integral components of firearms, essential for their operation, and thus should be protected under the Second Amendment.
Criticism from Colleagues
The video drew sharp criticism from fellow judges. Judge Marsha Berzon described it as “wildly improper,” asserting that VanDyke acted more like an expert witness than a judge, introducing new evidence outside the official record. She emphasized that judicial opinions should rely solely on evidence presented during litigation, cautioning against setting a precarious precedent.
Legal Community’s Response
Legal experts expressed concern over VanDyke’s approach, noting that while judicial dissents are common, using a video format with live demonstrations is highly unorthodox. Some fear this method could undermine the judiciary’s perceived impartiality and decorum. Others, however, acknowledge that VanDyke’s video highlights a significant issue: the potential gap in judges’ practical understanding of firearms when ruling on gun-related cases.
Public Reaction
The public’s response has been polarized. Gun rights advocates commend VanDyke for shedding light on what they perceive as judicial ignorance regarding firearms, arguing that such understanding is crucial for fair rulings. Conversely, gun control supporters view the video as a sensationalist tactic that distracts from the core issue of public safety and the judiciary’s role in interpreting the law without bias.
Looking Ahead
The controversy surrounding VanDyke’s video dissent raises questions about the evolving nature of judicial expression and the boundaries of traditional legal discourse. As the debate over gun control continues, this incident underscores the challenges courts face in balancing legal interpretations with practical considerations. It remains to be seen whether this unconventional dissent will influence future judicial practices or prompt discussions about integrating practical knowledge into legal deliberations.
