Law Judge releases video of himself disassembling guns in chambers in dissent against court ruling - During the video, Judge Lawrence VanDyke of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said his colleagues have a "basic misunderstanding of how firearms work."

L/A
An appellate judge shared a video of himself disassembling multiple firearms in an unusual dissent against the court's decision to uphold California's ban on gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

During the video, Judge Lawrence VanDyke of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said his colleagues have a "basic misunderstanding of how firearms work."

Throughout the 18-minute video, VanDyke said large-capacity magazines should be covered under the Second Amendment. He argued that the magazines can allow the gun to function better, and should be considered functional parts, not accessories. He said he had planned to voice his arguments in his dissent but found it "obviously much more effective to simply show you." He stated that the guns featured in the video were inoperable for safety reasons.

Judge Lawrence VanDyke holds up a firearm in his chambers after an appeals court ruled that California's law banning gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition can remain in place. U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit

His colleagues on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a law banning large-capacity gun magazines was allowed under the Second Amendment, finding in a 7-4 decision that large-capacity magazines are not considered "arms" or "protected accessories." The dissenting judges, including VanDyke, wrote that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "the most common magazines in the country" and are sold with most guns.

In her concurrence with the ruling, Judge Marsha Berzon criticized VanDyke's video, saying that he had "in essence appointed himself as an expert witness in the case" and provided "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."

Berzon also called it "wildly improper" and said it should be commented on "lest the genre proliferate."

VanDyke was nominated by President Trump during his first term and confirmedin December 2019. The Senate confirmed him in a 51-44 vote.

 

[World Famous Quasi Payer]

Judge Marsha Berzon criticized VanDyke's video, saying that he had "in essence appointed himself as an expert witness in the case" and provided "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."

Does it take an "expert witness" to go through all the "procedural safeguards for experts and their testimony" to say the sky is blue, your honor? Or can we, the laity, use our fucking eyes?

 

[LifeAlert]

Based, even though this will do nothing to change their minds. This case is yet another example of how the constitution is just a novelty buzzword and no longer applies in today's world. Your rights are up to the whims of whatever mood your betters are in that day

 

[I Shidded I Farded I Came]

Does it take an "expert witness" to go through all the "procedural safeguards for experts and their testimony" to say the sky is blue, your honor? Or can we, the laity, use our fucking eyes?

She would prefer that he ruled based on her feelings and political inclinations than actually knowing what he is talking about. As if you need to be an "expert" to point out the obvious.

 

[Dumbledore's Onlyfans]

She would prefer that he ruled based on her feelings and political inclinations than actually knowing what he is talking about. As if you need to be an "expert" to point out the obvious.

It's also in her best interest to make it seem like it requires an "expert" to understand how to field-strip a gun, rather than it being something that a well-trained 12-year-old could do.

 

[Illiterate Construct]

It's so refreshing to see a judge actually have a sense of what the fuck they're talking about when it comes to firearms. Additionally his approach of releasing a video where he goes over his perspective of a case using plain language anyone can understand is wonderfully insightful and helps reinforce just how wrong the other side is. Hopefully with this going viral more judges will start to embrace social media in this way.

 

[BulkForceFive]

It wasn't a bad video, but I think he should've gone on the attack in a much stronger manner. Some firearms have integral magazines that cannot be removed. Some firearms with removable mags do not have a 10rd option due to lack of demand or newness on the market. The 10-round limit is an attempt to runaround the 2nd Amendment by introducing an unreasonable standard to 'voluntarily' limit sales.

 

[The Dude]

I like how that one Pinko judge is bitching about how "improper" it is for the dissenting judge to do this while completely ignoring that the Supreme Court has made it clear that rulings on cases that involve civil liberties must be done so in the historical tradition of this country, and that anything in common use (like magazines in capacities greater than 10 rounds) is clearly protected under the Second Amendment.

 

[Snekposter]

I like how that one Pinko judge is bitching about how "improper" it is for the dissenting judge to do this while completely ignoring that the Supreme Court has made it clear that rulings on cases that involve civil liberties must be done so in the historical tradition of this country, and that anything in common use (like magazines in capacities greater than 10 rounds) is clearly protected under the Second Amendment.

Yeah, but its the Ninth Circus, I mean Circuit. They've treated basic jurisprudence as a joke for decades.

 

[TowinKarz]

The magazine size ban, like all of them, is fundamentally at-odds with Bruen and will fall eventually. Doesn't mean the ride through the appellate till we get there isn't frustrating, as this Judge proves when his more activist brethren decide to rule by emotion and a desire to socially tinker.

There is absolutely no logic to the notion that a gun is legal or illegal, or dangerous or safe based only on the number of rounds in the mag. If it's legal at one? It's legal at 11 or 100, there's no way to justify thinking otherwise unless you already have preconceived negative notions about them and the people who own them.

It wasn't a bad video, but I think he should've gone on the attack in a much stronger manner. Some firearms have integral magazines that cannot be removed. Some firearms with removable mags do not have a 10rd option due to lack of demand or newness on the market. The 10-round limit is an attempt to runaround the 2nd Amendment by introducing an unreasonable standard to 'voluntarily' limit sales.

And then turn around and use the limited sales as justification for a ban: See? Nobody uses these. It's not worth keeping them for legal sale to just a few gun nuts. Are we going to just let the obsoletes have their way? Or are we gonna do the right thing and protect our kids?!

 

[Absurdist Laughter]

Judge Marsha Berzon criticized VanDyke's video, saying that he had "in essence appointed himself as an expert witness in the case"

Anyone with two brain cells could have made this video and argument seethe more.

 

[AllieKat]

From my cold dead hands you fed niggers