judge lawrence vandyke makes video criticizing court’s ruling on california magazine ban
1. Setting the Scene: What Happened and Why It’s Unusual
In March 2025, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California’s ban on large-capacity magazines—those capable of holding more than 10 rounds. In a 7-4 en banc decision authored by Judge Susan Graber, the court ruled these magazines are not “arms” protected by the Second Amendment—or even necessary accessories. Even if they were, the law aligns with the nation’s tradition of firearm regulation.
judge lawrence vandyke makes video criticizing court’s ruling on california magazine ban, one of the dissenters, decided to take a remarkable step: instead of relying solely on written dissent, he posted an 18-minute video filmed in his chambers on YouTube. There, in full judicial robes, he disassembled firearms and demonstrated how magazines are integral to their operation. This video was directly attached to his dissent, reflecting a bold, visual argument against the ruling.
This kind of move—bringing firearms into a video as part of judicial dissent—is virtually unprecedented. Legal experts called it unorthodox, and many of VanDyke’s colleagues were deeply uncomfortable. The video triggered a broader debate about courtroom decorum, judicial boundaries, and whether courts should rely on traditional written analysis or innovative visual aids.
2. VanDyke’s Rationale: “Showing Is More Effective Than Telling”
Judge VanDyke’s approach was grounded in clarity. In the video, he contended that many—including California’s counsel and a majority of his colleagues—fundamentally misunderstood firearms mechanics. He believed that merely stating this might not resonate; “in this instance, showing is much more effective than telling,” he said.
He walked viewers through how a semi-automatic firearm cycles: the slide ejects a spent round, chambers a new one straight from the magazine, and repeats. He emphasized that California acknowledges a magazine is necessary for function. But the majority’s argument—that substituting a lower-capacity magazine makes higher-capacity ones unprotected accessories—falls apart logically. By that logic, if you can swap any part (like sights or grips), they could all be labeled accessories and banned.
VanDyke framed his video as illustrating a conceptual point, not introducing new factual evidence. In his written dissent, he insisted that his video simply made his argument more tangible—not about offering expert testimony, but about clarifying the logical implications of the majority’s reasoning.
3. Backlash from Colleagues: “Wildly Improper,” They Say
No one expected a judge to film himself handling firearms for a dissent, and the reaction was swift. Judge Marsha Berzon—joined by the chief judge and four others—branded the move as “wildly improper.” In her concurrence, Berzon contended VanDyke essentially made himself an unsanctioned expert witness, presenting factual demonstrations that fell outside the official court record and bypassed normal procedural safeguards.
The majority opinion noted the court cannot rely on such extra-record material; judicial notice doesn’t extend to judge-made videos. In traditional practice, judicial dissent navigates through strict rules that require a factual basis rooted in the case record—not demonstrations filmed independently. VanDyke’s video sidestepped that standard.
Legal experts weighed in, calling the dissent unique but alarming. Appellate specialist Dan Barer commented it may signal the future of judicial opinions—but that future is fraught with concerns over authority, precedent, and the line between judge and witness.
4. Why It Matters: Courtroom Norms, Second Amendment Stakes, and Judicial Innovation
At its core, vanDyke’s dissent cuts into two major concerns. First, it challenges how courts interpret the Second Amendment under the framework set by Bruen—a shift toward historical tradition. The majority found the ban consistent with tradition amid mass shooting concerns. VanDyke saw its reasoning as doctrinally flawed, logically erasing protections for almost all firearm components.
Second, the dissent forces a broader conversation: should judges innovate in how constitutional arguments are made? VanDyke clearly felt that visual clarity could strengthen legal persuasion. But other judges and scholars fear this undermines norms—written opinions are vetted, formal, and carefully structured. Videos, though accessible, bypass the rigors of written argumentation. Finally, the case could reach the Supreme Court. A petition for certiorari is already filed (August 15, 2025), putting VanDyke’s video on the line for the highest bench. If SCOTUS hears the case, it might also weigh whether such forms of dissent are acceptable—or whether they cross a decorum boundary.
5. The Human Angle: Judicial History and VanDyke’s Profile
Judge Lawrence VanDyke is a Trump appointee confirmed in late 2019, receiving criticism from the American Bar Association as “an ideologue” with concerns about courtroom readiness. He clerked, worked in environmental and constitutional law, and served in multiple state SG roles before joining the Ninth Circuit.
His dissent reflects a broader pattern: VanDyke is known for striking, sharply worded opinions, including one where he wrote both a majority opinion and an alternate concurrence in the same case to illustrate judicial flexibility. That flair for unconventional display has characterized his tenure, and the video is consistent with that style.
Some observers, like law professor John Collins, noted the video could be an audition for higher judicial roles—including the Supreme Court—particularly given VanDyke’s media-savvy approach and Trump’s influence.
Conclusion: A Dissent for the Digital Age—Provocative, Problematic, and Precedent-Setting?
Judge VanDyke’s video dissent is a milestone in judicial expression—a dramatic blend of firearms demonstration, courtroom dissent, and media outreach. On one hand, it adds clarity and vividness to a constitutional critique; on the other, it raises serious questions about judicial norms, propriety, and where innovation becomes spectacle.
VanDyke believed that visual demonstration better conveys the logical consequences of naming high-capacity magazines “unprotected accessories.” His critics called it procedurally suspect and decorum-breaking. The larger question now is whether this approach will become a contagion—or a one-off curiosity.
As the case potentially advances to the Supreme Court, the implications extend beyond Second Amendment law. They touch the core of how judges communicate, the boundaries of dissent, and the role of media in modern jurisprudence.
