Trump-appointed judge dissents in California ammo case with gun-filled YouTube video

A Trump-appointed appellate tribunal justice who disagreed with a determination by his colleagues to uphold California’s prohibition connected large-capacity ammunition magazines responded successful a highly antithetic mode Thursday, posting a “dissent video” to YouTube of him manipulating firearms successful his judicial chambers.

At the commencement of the nearly 19-minute video, Judge Lawrence VanDyke — who was confirmed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals successful 2019 — blasted his colleagues’ decision that the authorities prohibition connected magazines holding much than 10 rounds is law due to the fact that it fundamentally restricts an accessory to semiautomatic firearms, not the firearms themselves.

“I deliberation anyone with a basal familiarity with firearms could amusement you that this attempted favoritism is simply inconsistent with reality,” VanDyke said — earlier rapidly making it wide that helium would beryllium providing specified a tutorial himself.

“I primitively planned to explicate each of this successful penning successful my sentiment connected wherefore the statement doesn’t marque sense, but it occurred to maine that successful this instance, showing is overmuch much effectual than telling,” VanDyke said. “As the aged saying goes, a representation is sometimes worthy a 1000 words. And present I anticipation you volition hold that a video is astatine slightest worthy that much.”

The determination instantly drew the ire of VanDyke’s colleagues, who called the video “wildly improper” and blasted VanDyke for someway misconstruing his relation arsenic an “expert witness” alternatively of a subordinate of the sheet deciding the lawsuit connected its ineligible merits. It besides drew crisp disapproval from extracurricular ineligible scholars, 1 of whom said judges “shouldn’t beryllium striving to beryllium societal media influencers.”

Dressed successful his achromatic judicial robe and seated astatine a table with a weapon mounted connected the partition down him, VanDyke said it was his archetypal clip making specified a video, and apologized for the mediocre quality.

He said helium had “rendered inoperable” each the guns helium was astir to usage successful his demonstration. And helium said helium was making the video “not to supplement the factual grounds that we are utilizing to determine this case” — thing that would beryllium squarely extracurricular the scope of his authorization arsenic an appellate justice — but to supply a “rudimentary understanding” of wherefore his colleagues successful the court’s bulk were incorrect successful their ain investigation of the facts.

“I’m definite I could explicate each of this successful penning without being accused of improper fact-finding, but it’s evidently overmuch much effectual to simply amusement you,” VanDyke said.

He past handled respective handguns, discussing their features — magazines, sights, grips, takedown levers, etc. — and explaining however to reassemble 1 successful a mode helium said would marque it “more dangerous” if “misused.”

The point, VanDyke said, was to “illustrate” his cardinal statement successful the underlying case: that, if the majority’s appraisal of a large-capacity mag being an accessory were legitimate, “the nonstop aforesaid statement would use to fundamentally each portion connected this firearm, which would mean that fundamentally thing connected this firearm would beryllium protected by the 2nd Amendment.”

VanDyke’s statement is fundamentally a slippery-slope argument. By his estimation, if the bulk sentiment is allowed to stand, much and much parts of firearms could beryllium banned until the quality to efficaciously limb oneself successful California is wholly lost.

The bulk sentiment helium railed against, of course, took a antithetic view.

Circuit Judge Susan P. Graber, penning for the majority, recovered that California’s prohibition connected large-capacity magazines was law precisely due to the fact that it “restricts an particularly unsafe diagnostic of semiautomatic firearms — the quality to usage a large-capacity mag — portion allowing each different uses of those firearms.”

“So acold arsenic California’s instrumentality is concerned, persons whitethorn ain arsenic galore bullets, magazines, and firearms arsenic they desire; whitethorn occurrence arsenic galore rounds arsenic they like; and whitethorn transportation their bullets, magazines, and firearms wherever doing truthful is permissible,” Graber wrote. “The lone effect of California’s instrumentality connected equipped self-defense is the regulation that a idiosyncratic whitethorn occurrence nary much than 10 rounds without pausing to reload, thing seldom done successful self-defense.”

State officials applauded the ruling. Chuck Michel, an lawyer for the plaintiffs who challenged the law, said they would inquire the U.S. Supreme Court to reappraisal — and vacate — the decision.

VanDyke’s antithetic and possibly unprecedented determination to chopped a video explaining his dissent was met with derision from his colleagues.

Judge Marsha S. Berzon, an appointee of President Clinton, wrote a abstracted sentiment — joined by 5 different judges — expressly denouncing VanDyke’s “wildly improper” and “novel form” of dissent.

Berzon said VanDyke’s video “improperly relies connected factual worldly that is unquestionably extracurricular of the record” established by the litigants successful the lawsuit successful the little court, which is not thing appellate judges are expected to do.

“His root for these beyond-the grounds facts? A video that helium recorded, successful his ain chambers, showing him handling respective antithetic handguns and explaining his knowing of their mechanics and operation,” Berzon wrote, with wide exasperation.

She wrote that VanDyke had “in essence appointed himself arsenic an adept witness” successful the case, “providing a factual presumption with the explicit purpose of convincing the readers of his presumption of the facts without complying with immoderate of the procedural safeguards that usually use to experts and their testimony, portion simultaneously serving connected the sheet deciding the case.”

Berzon wrote that the sheet was “right to ignore” the video successful the substance astatine hand, which she said the rules of the tribunal bash not allow, but that she besides felt it indispensable to rebuke astatine magnitude “lest the genre proliferate.”

More worrisome than VanDyke’s usurpation of established rules for placing dissents connected the record, Berzon wrote, was his determination to enactment himself guardant arsenic immoderate benignant of adept connected guns, erstwhile nary specified decision was oregon ever could beryllium reached successful the lawsuit astatine hand, fixed his station connected the sheet deciding the outcome.

“Myriad rules govern the submission and presumption of adept testimony, each of which Judge VanDyke has bypassed by introducing his factual grounds connected entreaty and alongside his dissent,” Berzon wrote.

Berzon was joined by 3 different Clinton appointees and 2 appointees of President Obama — including Chief Judge Mary H. Murguia, who helps to oversee different judges, including arsenic seat of the Judicial Council of the 9th Circuit.

It was unclear Friday whether the video would pb to immoderate different reprimand, oregon reconsideration oregon reminder of tribunal rules. Katherine Rodriguez, a tribunal spokeswoman, declined to remark erstwhile asked.

Jacob Charles, an subordinate prof of instrumentality astatine Pepperdine Caruso School of Law who has studied and written astir 9th Circuit lawsuit instrumentality astir guns, said helium had ne'er seen thing similar VanDyke’s video earlier — and for bully reason.

“In my opinion, it is beyond question inappropriate. I don’t deliberation there’s immoderate different mode to qualify that than arsenic performative advocacy,” Charles said. “Judges shouldn’t beryllium striving to beryllium societal media influencers.”

Charles said courts for centuries person relied connected written opinions, and VanDyke’s video “seems much similar an effort to own the libs than fulfill the judicial relation of engaging successful good-faith quality resolution.”

In his ain written dissent, VanDyke defended his video. He besides offered much of the condescension toward his colleagues that defined the video — astatine 1 constituent referring to them arsenic his “amateur gunsmithing colleagues” and blasting their determination arsenic inept.

“It is truthful casual to show the conceptual failings of the majority’s caller test,” helium wrote, “that adjacent a caveman with conscionable a video recorder and a firearm could bash it.”