Gun-toting judge’s ‘wildly improper’ video from inside his chambers sparks furious backlash from colleagues

An appeals court judge took the bizarre step of recording himself handling several handguns and explaining their mechanisms as he slammed colleagues for upholding a California law banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

US Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke said he hoped the video would show how a lack of familiarity with firearms had resulted in a flawed 7-4 decision by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

Instead of writing his opinion, as has always been the tradition in the US court system, the judge opted break precedent to share his dissent in a YouTube video where he demonstrated how to use guns.

In the 18-minute video, VanDyke assembled his firearms and demonstrated the parts of a gun to assert that magazines should be protected under the Second Amendment. 

In the long-running lawsuit, the California Rifle & Pistol Association and gun owners argued that the Democratic-led state’s ban on large-capacity magazines violated the right to keep and bear arms under the US Constitution’s Second Amendment. 

A federal judge in San Diego in 2023 agreed, citing a landmark ruling by the 6-3 conservative majority US Supreme Court a year earlier that held that firearms restrictions be ‘consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation’ to pass muster.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, appealed, and on Thursday, the appeals court concluded the law comported with the Second Amendment because magazines are accessories, not “arms,” and fell within the historical tradition of protecting innocent people from ‘especially dangerous uses of weapons.’

VanDyke used the video as a ‘visual representation’ to illustrate his point that magazines should be protected under the Constitution 

‘A large-capacity magazine has little function in armed self-defense, but its use by mass shooters has exacerbated the harm of those horrific events,’ US Circuit Judge Graber, an appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton, wrote. 

VanDyke dissented, writing in an opinion that the majority was relying on ‘its invented “arms–accessory” distinction as an on/off switch for fundamental constitutional protections.’

To prove his point, he included a link to a video of himself handling several handguns and explaining their mechanisms to show how the majority ‘lacked the basic familiarity with firearms to understand the inherent shortcomings’ with its rulings.

The judge began his video by accusing his colleagues of ‘lacking the basic understanding’ of operating firearms. 

VanDyke continued the bizarre visual representation by sitting at his desk with a rifle decorating the wall behind him. 

He went on to accuse the majority of his fellow judges and California counsel of holding an opinion that ‘doesn’t make sense’ and said that although he considered explaining why in his dissent, he decided it would be easier to film a video. 

The video then cut to VanDyke in his chambers with a bag of firearms displayed on a table where he demonstrated the parts of a handgun, including a magazine. 

Judge Marsha Berzon slammed VanDyke’s video as ‘wildly improper’ and labeled his demonstration as ‘egregious’ 

His fellow judges were shocked at his unusual delivery, with Judge Marsha Berzon calling the video ‘wildly improper.’ 

Berzon said that the video included facts outside the record and urged it to be ignored. 

‘The majority opinion thus considers the video no differently than it would any other factual source that is not in the record and not subject to judicial notice or another of the narrow exceptions: it ignores it,’ she added. 

She went on to say that VanDyke was making himself out to be an expert in the video, which is inappropriate for a sitting judge presiding over a case to do. Berzon added that VanDyke’s actions were ‘egregious.’ 

In response to Berzon’s fiery remarks that VanDyke was positioning himself as an expert, he coyly responded, ‘But as much as I may be flattered, I think the accusation misses the mark – indeed, I think my colleagues aren’t even aiming at the right target.’ 

VanDyke maintained that he was within legal precedent to issue a video for his dissent as a means to present a visual aid to his argument. 

VanDyke’s video began while he was seated at his desk with a large rifle mounted on the wall behind him 

The video then cuts to his chambers where he pointed out the parts of a handgun and argued that magazines contribute to the gun’s effectiveness 

Magazines have come under scrutiny by gun control advocates because they can significantly increase the amount of time needed to rapidly reload ammunition. 

Mass shooters, including Adam Lanza who killed 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School, have used magazines to rapidly kill their victims. 

In response to the Sandy Hook tragedy, California passed a law in 2016 to prohibit large-capacity magazines. 

It was later added to state law that those in possession of large-capacity magazines were committing a misdemeanor crime. 

VanDyke has previously been criticized for his pro-gun stance, along with his views on the environment and LGBTQ+ rights. 

President Trump nominated VanDyke to the Court of Appeals in 2019, and his confirmation hearing became contentious when lawmakers questioned him on his past viewpoints. 

In response to his nomination, the American Bar Association issued a scathing letter accusing him of being unqualified to sit on the court. 

The ABA called VanDyke, ‘arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice.’ 

Despite the criticism, VanDyke was confirmed to the 9th Circuit by a Senate vote of 51-44.