In a rare and extraordinary move that has left the legal community stunned and the Second Amendment debate reignited, U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke stepped far outside judicial norms this week by releasing a video of himself handling firearms as part of a formal dissent.
The video, which was linked in his written opinion, aims to challenge a recent 9th Circuit Court decision upholding California’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
VanDyke, a Trump-era appointee and once a name floated for a potential U.S. Supreme Court seat, didn’t just write a strong dissent—he acted it out. In the video, he appears in what resembles a home setting, complete with a rifle mounted on the wall, calmly demonstrating how various handguns operate. His argument is clear: the majority opinion, upheld by a 7-4 vote, suffers from a fundamental misunderstanding of how firearms work, and that ignorance, he says, led them to misapply constitutional protections.
“It occurred to me that in this instance, showing is much more effective than telling,” VanDyke said. And in doing so, he may have created a first in federal judicial history: a ruling that includes audiovisual evidence—produced by the judge himself.
Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke recorded himself giving a firearms demo in his chambers as part of his dissent in a Second Amendment case today. pic.twitter.com/eLTpDwmfLa
— Katelynn Richardson (@katesrichardson) March 20, 2025
Legal scholars quickly weighed in. Some saw the move as bold, if controversial; others, like fellow 9th Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon, called it “wildly improper,” arguing that VanDyke crossed the line from legal analysis into advocacy. Critics say the video blurs the boundary between jurist and expert witness, a line courts are not supposed to cross.
Still, the political undercurrents are unmistakable. John Collins, a law professor at George Washington University, suggested the move might be calculated. “I suspect it is an effort to audition for elevation to the Supreme Court,” Collins said, pointing out the video’s strong appeal to conservatives and its visual resonance with gun rights advocates.
At the heart of the case lies a pivotal Second Amendment question: do magazine capacity limits infringe upon the constitutional right to bear arms? The 9th Circuit says no, drawing a distinction between firearms themselves and their accessories. The majority argued that large-capacity magazines are not essential to self-defense and are frequently used in mass shootings, giving the state a compelling interest in limiting them.
VanDyke fiercely disagreed, accusing the court of inventing an “arms-accessory distinction” to sidestep the Constitution. He maintained that the majority’s lack of practical firearms knowledge led to a flawed interpretation of both historical context and functional necessity.
