Judge Lawrence VanDyke criticizes colleagues' ignorance on firearms
- Judge Lawrence VanDyke of the Ninth Circuit criticized his colleagues' understanding of firearms in a dissent video.
- He argued that limiting magazine sizes undermines self-defense and distorts the constitutional interpretation of the Second Amendment.
- His dissent sparked controversy, with fellow judges questioning the propriety of his video presentation.
In a dissenting opinion video, Judge Lawrence VanDyke of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit took an unconventional approach to voice his disagreement regarding a ruling that upheld California's ban on magazines that hold over ten rounds. VanDyke, appointed by former President Donald Trump, recorded the video in his chambers to illustrate his points using his personal firearm equipment, arguing that the majority's ruling was based on a flawed understanding of firearms and their functionality. He stated that his colleagues had adopted an impractical constitutional standard that overlooked essential aspects of firearm use and self-defense. The dissent arose after the Supreme Court instructed the Ninth Circuit to revisit its decision in light of significant precedents emphasizing the need for firearm regulations to reflect historical norms. VanDyke expressed concern regarding the majority's reasoning that a magazine is merely an accessory and not an integral part of a firearm protected under the Second Amendment. He demonstrated how limiting magazine sizes could severely affect self-defense capabilities, as frequent reloading can be critical in high-stress situations. Moreover, VanDyke underscored the dangers of such restrictions, drawing on a real-life incident involving an off-duty police officer who was attacked and had to fire more than ten rounds. His dissent also highlighted the consequences of the court's ruling potentially paving the way for more extensive gun restrictions that could include semi-automatic firearms, as the logic used to ban magazines could feasibly extend to other aspects of firearm regulation. While his video dissent was aimed at elucidating the majority's flawed reasoning, it received backlash from Judge Marsha Berzon, who labeled the presentation as wildly improper. Berzon argued that VanDyke had effectively positioned himself as an expert witness without adhering to the necessary procedural safeguards. In response, VanDyke maintained that his video merely exposed the deficiencies in the majority’s logic and should not distract from the academic rigor and realities involved in gun rights discussions.