In a move that has left legal experts and the public alike shaking their heads, Judge Lawrence VanDyke of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has once again proven that his allegiance to gun rights eclipses his commitment to impartiality and judicial decorum.
In a bizarre and widely criticized video dissent, VanDyke brandished a bag of firearms in his chambers while arguing against his colleagues’ decision to uphold California’s ban on high-capacity magazines in the case Duncan v. Bonta.
The full San Fransisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 7-4 Thursday to uphold California’s ban on large capacity magazines.
The case was a Second Amendment challenge to California’s 2016 law that barred possession of large-capacity magazines.
The dispute reached the United States Supreme Court in 2021, and was subsequently remanded following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
The video stunt, which has been labeled “wildly improper” by fellow judges, underscores VanDyke’s blatant bias and raises serious questions about his fitness to serve on the bench.
The 18-minute YouTube video, which has since gone viral, features VanDyke seated in front of a mounted long gun, pulling handguns out of a tote bag and disassembling them like a self-appointed firearms instructor.
His goal? To argue that his fellow judges—who upheld California’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds—have a “basic misunderstanding of how firearms work.”
The performance was less a legal argument and more a theatrical display of gun advocacy, complete with props and a dismissive tone that bordered on condescension.
Judge Marsha Berzon, one of VanDyke’s colleagues on the 9th Circuit, did not mince words in her response.
In a scathing concurrence, she called the video “wildly improper,” accusing VanDyke of essentially appointing himself as an expert witness without adhering to any of the procedural safeguards that govern such testimony.
“Judge VanDyke has in essence appointed himself as an expert witness in this case,” Berzon wrote, “providing a factual presentation with the express aim of convincing the readers of his view of the facts without complying with any of the procedural safeguards that usually apply to experts and their testimony, while simultaneously serving on the panel deciding the case.”
VanDyke’s video dissent is not just an embarrassment to the judiciary; it is a stark reminder of his long-standing reputation as an ideologue. Confirmed to the 9th Circuit in 2019 by a narrow Senate vote of 51-44, VanDyke’s appointment was marred by controversy from the start.
The American Bar Association (ABA) delivered a damning assessment of his qualifications, describing him as “an ideologue” who was “lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice” of law.
The ABA’s letter, based on interviews with 60 lawyers, judges, and colleagues, painted a picture of a man more interested in advancing a political agenda than upholding the rule of law.
In the video, VanDyke claimed that his demonstration was meant to convey a “conceptual point” about how firearms function, not to present “disputable facts.” But this defense rings hollow.
By using his judicial platform to stage a pro-gun spectacle, VanDyke has crossed a line that undermines public trust in the judiciary. His actions suggest that he views the courtroom—and now, apparently, YouTube—as a stage for promoting his personal views rather than a forum for impartial adjudication.
The backlash to VanDyke’s video has been swift and severe. Commenters on social media and legal forums have lambasted him as unqualified, biased, and a political hack.
Many have pointed to his confirmation as yet another example of partisan judicial appointments undermining the integrity of the courts.
One commenter summed up the prevailing sentiment: “This is not what a judge should be doing. This is what a gun lobbyist does.”
VanDyke’s dissent in Duncan v. Bonta is not just a legal opinion; it is a manifesto of his unwavering commitment to gun rights, even at the expense of public safety and judicial propriety.
His video stunt is a troubling reminder of the dangers of judicial activism and the need for judges who prioritize fairness and impartiality over ideology and theatrics. For Californians and all Americans who value a judiciary free from bias and grandstanding, VanDyke’s latest antics are a cause for serious concern.
Discover more from NJTODAY.NET
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.