In an unprecedented move, Judge Lawrence VanDyke of the 9th Circuit posted a YouTube video critiquing his colleagues' decision to uphold California's ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines. In the video, he argued that the ban mistakenly categorizes magazines as mere accessories, rather than integral to firearm functionality. VanDyke's colleagues condemned this approach, labeling it wildly improper and questioning the appropriateness of a judge acting as a social media influencer. This incident raises significant concerns regarding the intersection of judicial conduct and public opinion in the digital age.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke criticized his colleagues’ ruling on California's ban on large-capacity magazines, asserting it misrepresents the reality of firearm functionality.
VanDyke's 'dissent video' showcasing firearms in his chambers was denounced as wildly improper by colleagues who felt it misrepresented judicial impartiality.
He emphasized the effectiveness of visual demonstration over written opinion, claiming a video could convey better understanding of firearm magazine functionality.
Legal scholars condemned VanDyke’s approach, suggesting that judges should not aim to become social media influencers, as it undermines judicial integrity.
Collection
[
|
...
]