An appeal judge appointed by Trump disagreed with his colleagues’ decision to demand that California ban California’s ban on large ammunition magazines respond in a very unusual way, and posted a “dissent video” to YouTube and posted a gun he manipulated on him in a judicial religious court.
At the start of nearly 19 minutes of video, Judge Lawrence Vandyke, who had confirmed in 2019 to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, slammed his colleagues’ conclusion that the state prohibits holding more than 10 rounds of magazines banning constitutional provisions because it essentially restricts attachments to semi-automatic ignitions, rather than legacy, rather than itself.
“I think anyone who is basically familiar with guns can show you that the difference in this attempt is inconsistent with reality,” Van Dijk said.
“I originally planned to explain all this in writing in a way that I don’t think the argument makes sense, but in my opinion, the display is much more effective than telling,” Van Dijk said. “As the saying goes, sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. Here, I hope you agree that the video is worth at least so much.”
The move immediately sparked anger from Van Dijk’s colleagues, who called the video “crazy misconduct” and somehow misunderstood his role as an “expert witness” rather than a panelist who decided on the case on the legal side. It also drew sharp criticism from outside legal scholars, one of whom said judges “should not work to be social media influencers.”
Van Dijk, dressed in his black judicial robe, sat on the table and on the wall behind him, said it was his first time making such a video and apologizing for the poor quality.
He said he “makes useless” all the guns he will use during the demonstration. He said he was making videos “not to supplement the factual record we used to decide on this case”, which goes far beyond his authority as an appellate judge – but rather why his colleagues in the court majority provided a “basic understanding” in their analysis of the facts.
“I’m sure I can explain all of this in writing without being accused of the facts being found inappropriate, but simply showing you that it’s obviously more effective.”
He then dealt with several pistols, discussing their features – magazines, scopes, grips, cut-off levers, etc. – and explaining how to reassemble one in the way he said it would make it “more dangerous” if it was “abused”.
Van Dijk said this is to “illustrate” his central argument in the basic case: If most people’s assessment of a large-capacity magazine was legitimate, “the exact same argument would apply to every part of the gun, which actually means that nothing on that telegram would be protected by the 2ND Amendment.”
Vandyke’s argument is essentially a landslide argument. According to his estimates, if most opinions are allowed to endure, more and more guns can be banned until the ability to effectively arm oneself effectively in California is completely lost.
Of course, the majority of his objections took a different view.
Circuit Judge Susan Prague (Susan P.
“In terms of California’s law, people may have as many bullets, magazines and guns as they can; they can fire their own bullets, magazines and guns as they please, and carry bullets, magazines and guns anyway,” Graber wrote. “The only effect of California’s law on armed self-defense is that a person may fire no more than ten rounds without stopping to reload, which is rarely done in self-defense.”
State officials appreciate the ruling. Chuck Michel, the plaintiff’s attorney who challenged the law, said they would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review and revoke the ruling.
The abnormality of Vandyke’s cut video, perhaps an unprecedented decision, explains the ridicule of his dissent.
President Clinton appointed judge Marsha S.
Belson said Van Dijk’s video “is not right to rely on unquestionable factual material, said to have been established in a lower court case, and that’s not what the appeal judge should do.
“A video he recorded in his conference hall showed him how to deal with several different pistols and explained his understanding of their mechanics and operations,” Bozan wrote angrily: “He recorded a video in his room showing him how to deal with several different pistols and explained his understanding of their mechanics and operations.”
Vandyke, in this case, “essentially appoints himself as an expert witness”, “provides a factual introduction, with the explicit purpose of convincing readers about the facts without having to comply with any procedural safeguards that usually apply to the experts and their testimony, while using the case on the panel to determine the case.”
Belson wrote that the group “ignores” videos in the incident at hand, saying the court’s rules would not allow, but she also felt it was necessary to denounce detailed condemnation “not genre proliferation.”
Berzon wrote that more worrying than Vandyke’s violation of the rules that put objections on record was that he decided to raise himself as some sort of expert on guns, because he had no such conclusions at hand or never came to them, because his position on the panel determined the outcome.
“The numerous rules stipulate the submission and presentation of expert testimony, and Judge Van Dijk introduced all of these rules by introducing his testimony of the facts of appeal and along with his objections,” Belson wrote.
Berzon joined the group along with three other Clinton appointers and two of President Obama’s appointers, including Chief Justice Mary H. Murguia, who helped oversee other judges, including serving as chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the 9th Circuit.
It is unclear whether the video will lead to any other condemnation, reconsideration or reminding the court rules. Court spokesman Katherine Rodriguez declined to comment when asked.
Jacob Charles, an associate professor of law at Pepperdine Caruso Law School, who has written about the Circuit Case Law around gun research and written about Circuit Case Law, said he had never seen a video like Vandyke before, and that was for good reason.
“I think there is no doubt about that,” Charles said. “I don’t think there is any other way to characterize this except for expressionistic advocacy,” he said. “Judges shouldn’t try to be social media influencers.”
Charles said courts have relied on written comments for centuries, and Van Dijk’s video “seems more like an attempt to own libs than to perform the judicial role of participating in dispute resolution for good deeds.”
Van Dijk defended his video with his own written objection. He also offered more condescendence to his colleagues who defined the video – who once called them his “amateur gunman colleagues” and slammed their decisions for being powerless.
“It is very easy to prove that most new test concepts fail, even cavemen with only video recorders and guns can do it,” he wrote.
