Judge VanDyke’s Dissenting Video Sparks Controversy in California Gun Magazine Ban Case
In a highly unusual move, Judge Lawrence VanDyke of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ignited a firestorm of debate with his dissenting opinion in a case concerning California’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Appointed by President Donald Trump, VanDyke took the unconventional step of issuing an 18-minute video, uploaded to the Ninth Circuit’s official YouTube channel, to articulate his disagreement with the majority’s decision to uphold the ban.
Dressed in his judicial robes, VanDyke argued that his colleagues on the appellate court demonstrated a lack of fundamental understanding of firearms, hindering their ability to grasp the inherent flaws and inadmissibility of the test proposed by California. The court voted 7-4 to uphold the ban, a decision that VanDyke believes is deeply misguided.
VanDyke emphasized that, as an appellate body, the court’s role is not to make factual determinations. He stated that the purpose of his video was not to supplement the factual record, but rather to illustrate how a basic comprehension of firearm mechanics, manufacturing, sales, usage, and common modifications reveals the inadequacies of California’s proposed tests and the court’s adopted approach. He asserted that while he could convey his arguments in writing, a visual demonstration would be far more effective in conveying his points.
To ensure safety, VanDyke clarified that all firearms and gun parts used in the video demonstration had been rendered inoperable.
The core of VanDyke’s dissent centered on challenging California’s assertion that a magazine holding more than 10 rounds is merely an accessory, rather than an integral part of an arm protected by the Second Amendment. He argued that this characterization contradicts the fundamental workings of a firearm, where the magazine plays an essential role, akin to the firearm itself.
VanDyke probed California’s counsel on whether the rationale used to justify banning these magazines could be extended to semi-automatic firearms, which hold more rounds than older weapons like muskets. He posited that the logic behind banning magazines could potentially lead to a ban on semi-automatics altogether, representing a more significant and extreme infringement of Second Amendment rights.
California’s attorney responded that they did not believe all semi-automatic weapons could be banned. They distinguished magazines as accessories, with the issue at hand being whether these accessories are essential to exercising the right to self-defense.
VanDyke then questioned the distinction between magazines and other firearm accessories, such as red dot sights. He asked if electronic optics, now common on firearms, could also be banned, given that iron sights are an alternative.
The state’s attorney admitted a lack of familiarity with the specifics of electronic optics, emphasizing the need to reserve time for rebuttal. She reiterated that the crux of the issue was whether the accessory in question was essential for self-defense.
The video has been received with condemnation by some, with Judge Marsha Berzon, a Clinton appointee, writing in her majority opinion that VanDyke’s video was "wildly improper" and that he "in essence appointed himself as an expert witness in this case."
The California legislation at the center of the controversy, Senate Bill 1446, was passed in 2016. It banned the possession of "large-capacity" magazines, defined as those holding more than 10 rounds, beginning on July 1, 2017. The bill also imposed fines for those who failed to comply with the ban. Later in 2016, California voters approved Proposition 63, which incorporated the provisions of Senate Bill 1446 and added a criminal penalty for the unlawful possession of large-capacity magazines after the July 1, 2017, deadline.
VanDyke’s video dissent is a highly unusual occurrence in the world of appellate courts. Typically, judges express their disagreements through written opinions. The decision to use a video format to demonstrate the mechanics of firearms and challenge the state’s arguments has sparked a wide range of reactions, with some praising VanDyke for his innovative approach and others criticizing him for overstepping the bounds of judicial conduct. The controversy surrounding the video is likely to continue, further fueling the debate over gun control and the interpretation of the Second Amendment.
