WATCH: Trump-appointed judge chides colleagues’ ignorance of guns in unique video dissent

Judge Lawrence VanDyke of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently made headlines with an 18-minute dissenting-opinion video uploaded to the court’s YouTube channel. The video was in response to his colleagues’ decision to uphold a California ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

In the video, VanDyke criticized his fellow judges for lacking a basic understanding of firearms, arguing that they did not grasp the inherent shortcomings of the test proposed by California. Dressed in his judicial robes, VanDyke proceeded to demonstrate the mechanics of his personal firearms, highlighting the importance of magazines in the function of a firearm.

VanDyke challenged California’s argument that magazines are merely accessories and not protected arms under the Second Amendment. He pointed out that a magazine plays an essential role in the function of a firearm, just like the firearm itself. He questioned whether the reasoning behind banning magazines could also be applied to semi-automatic firearms, potentially leading to a broader infringement of Second Amendment rights.

During a discussion with California’s counsel, VanDyke raised the issue of whether accessories like red dot sights could also be banned under the same logic. He emphasized the importance of distinguishing between essential accessories and non-essential ones in exercising the right to self-defense.

In response to VanDyke’s video, Clinton appointee Judge Marsha Berzon criticized him for appointing himself as an expert witness in the case. Despite the pushback, VanDyke’s demonstration shed light on the complexities of firearms and the potential implications of banning certain accessories.

The California ban on large-capacity magazines, passed in 2016, has been a contentious issue, with VanDyke’s dissent highlighting the need for a nuanced understanding of firearms in legal decision-making. As the debate over gun rights continues, VanDyke’s dissent serves as a reminder of the importance of considering all aspects of the Second Amendment in crafting legislation.