Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s Controversial Gun Video Sparks Debate Over California Gun Laws

Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s Unconventional Dissent Shakes Up California Gun Law Debate

On March 20, 2025, a routine ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines took an unexpected turn. Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a Trump-appointed appellate judge, broke tradition by releasing an 18-minute YouTube video dissent filmed in his judicial chambers. In the video, VanDyke handles several firearms, arguing that his colleagues lack a fundamental understanding of guns—a move that has ignited fierce debate over gun control, judicial conduct, and Second Amendment rights in the United States.

The ruling, which reaffirmed California’s prohibition on magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, was decided by a 7-4 vote. However, VanDyke’s video—featuring him in his black judicial robe, disassembling handguns with a rifle mounted on the wall behind him—has overshadowed the legal outcome, drawing both praise and sharp criticism. This article delves into the details of the case, VanDyke’s dissent, and its broader implications for gun laws in California and beyond.

The Case: Duncan v. Bonta and California’s Gun Control Measures

The legal battle, known as Duncan v. Bonta, centers on California’s long-standing ban on large-capacity magazines (LCMs), defined as those capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The law, enacted to enhance public safety, has been a lightning rod in the national gun control debate. In 2023, a district court judge in San Diego struck down the ban as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, prompting an appeal from the state.

On March 20, 2025, the 9th Circuit reversed that decision, ruling that LCMs are not protected “arms” or “accessories” under the Second Amendment. The majority opinion, supported by seven judges, aligned the ban with historical traditions of firearm regulation, citing a 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That landmark ruling established that gun laws must be consistent with America’s historical regulatory framework—a standard the majority argued California’s ban satisfies.

Judge VanDyke’s Video Dissent: A Firearm Tutorial from the Bench

Enter Judge Lawrence VanDyke. Dissenting from the majority, VanDyke took an unprecedented step by uploading a video to the 9th Circuit’s YouTube channel. In it, he demonstrates the mechanics of various handguns, including a Sig P320, to argue that high-capacity magazines are integral to a firearm’s function—not mere accessories as the majority claimed. “Many judges and gun-banning governments know next to nothing about how guns actually work,” VanDyke asserts in the video, suggesting that this ignorance led to a flawed ruling.

VanDyke’s demonstration aims to show that California’s proposed test for regulating gun components is impractical. He argues that LCMs, which he notes are standard in most firearms sold today, should enjoy Second Amendment protection. “The majority is requiring that these factory-standard parts be replaced with worse-than-factory parts—a 10-round magazine,” he says, holding up a firearm component. For safety, he emphasizes that all guns in the video were rendered inoperable.

Backlash from Colleagues and Legal Scholars

The video quickly drew a firestorm of criticism from VanDyke’s fellow judges. Judge Marsha S. Berzon, in a concurring opinion joined by five colleagues, called the move “wildly improper.” She accused VanDyke of acting as an “expert witness” rather than a judge, introducing facts outside the case’s record without adhering to procedural safeguards. “Our job is not to provide the facts that support our conclusions but to apply the law to the facts as presented,” Berzon wrote.

Legal scholars echoed this sentiment. Jacob Charles, a law professor at Pepperdine Caruso School of Law, told reporters he had “never seen anything like this before—and for good reason.” Others, like Lee Epstein from Washington University, suggested VanDyke’s actions might be a bid for attention, possibly angling for a Supreme Court nomination under a future Trump administration. Critics argue that such theatrics undermine the judiciary’s impartiality.

A Polarizing Figure in the Gun Rights Debate

VanDyke, confirmed to the 9th Circuit in 2019, is no stranger to controversy. A known gun enthusiast—he disclosed memberships in multiple firearm organizations during his Senate confirmation—VanDyke has consistently championed expansive Second Amendment interpretations. His dissent in Duncan v. Bonta aligns with previous rulings where he’s criticized what he calls the 9th Circuit’s “predictably biased” stance against gun rights.

Gun rights advocates have rallied behind VanDyke, praising his video as a bold stand against restrictive laws. Posts on X highlight support for his logic, with users calling it “spot on” and accusing California of chipping away at constitutional protections. Conversely, gun control proponents see the video as a stunt that prioritizes ideology over judicial restraint.

Implications for California Gun Laws and Beyond

The Duncan v. Bonta ruling keeps California’s LCM ban in place—for now. However, VanDyke’s dissent ensures the issue remains far from settled. The case could escalate to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the conservative majority might revisit the Bruen standard’s application to modern gun regulations. California, home to some of the nation’s strictest gun laws, often sets the tone for national debates, making this a pivotal moment.

Beyond the legal ramifications, VanDyke’s video raises questions about the role of judges in an increasingly polarized society. Is it a legitimate critique of judicial ignorance, as he claims, or a breach of decorum that erodes public trust? As gun violence remains a pressing issue—studies link LCMs to deadlier mass shootings—the clash between safety and rights continues to intensify.

What’s Next for Gun Control in the United States?

As of March 21, 2025, the fallout from VanDyke’s video is still unfolding. The 9th Circuit’s decision reinforces California’s authority to regulate firearms, but the dissent keeps the Second Amendment spotlight burning bright. Whether this episode influences future gun law challenges or VanDyke’s judicial career, one thing is clear: the intersection of guns, law, and politics in America is as contentious as ever.

For now, the video stands as a provocative artifact in the ongoing saga of gun control—a testament to both the passion and division surrounding the issue. As the nation watches, California’s gun laws and Judge Lawrence VanDyke remain at the heart of a debate that shows no signs of cooling down.