[ad_1]
A Trump-appointed appeals judge who opposed a colleague’s decision to uphold the California high-capacity ammunition magazine ban, responded in a very unusual way on Thursday, posting a “opposite video” to YouTube operating a firearm in his judicial room.
At the start of the nearly 19-minute video, Judge Lawrence Vandice, confirmed in 2019 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, condemned a colleague’s conclusion that the ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds is the constitution.
“I think anyone with basic knowledge of firearms can demonstrate that the attempted distinction is contradictory to reality,” Vandice said.
“I originally planned to explain all of this in writing in my opinion as to why the argument doesn’t make sense, but in this example I found it to be much more effective than shown,” Vandyke said. “As the old proverbs say, photos are sometimes worth a thousand words, and here we hope you agree that the video is at least worth that much.”
The move quickly attracted the rage of Vandice’s colleagues. He called the video “very inappropriate,” blowing up bandiques and somehow misinterpreted the role of panel members as “expert witnesses” instead of determining legal merits. It also elicited acute criticism from outside jurists. One said the judge “should not try to become a social media influencer.”
Dressed in his black judicial robe, sitting at a desk with a gun attached to the wall behind him, Bandique said it was his first time making such a video and apologized for the poor quality.
He said he “made it inoperable” all the guns he was trying to use in the demonstration. And he said he was making a video that said “it wasn’t to compensate for the factual records that he was using to determine the case.” This is to provide a “rudimentary understanding” of why, although outside the scope of his authority as an appeals judge, his colleagues in the majority of the courts were wrong in their own analysis of facts.
“I’m sure I can explain all of this in writing without being criticized for inappropriate fact-finding, but simply showing you is clearly much more effective,” says Vandyke.
He then deals with some handguns, discusses features such as magazines, sights, grips, takedown levers, and how to reassemble them in the way they say “misuse” makes them “more dangerous.”
According to Vandyke, the point was to “explain” his central argument in the underlying case. If the majority of accessory large-capacity magazines are legal, then “meaning that the exact same argument applies to every part of this firearm.
Vandyke’s argument is essentially a slippery slope argument. His estimation allows for more and more firearms to be banned until the ability to effectively arm in California is completely lost if the majority opinion is allowed to endure.
Of course, the majority opinion he opposed took a different view.
Written for the majority, Judge Susan P. Glover, Circuit, found that California’s ban on high-capacity magazines is constitutional because it “limits the particularly dangerous features of semi-automatic firearms and limits the ability to use large-capacity magazines while allowing all other uses of those firearms.”
“As far as California law is concerned, a person can own as many bullets, magazines and firearms as they wish. They can fire as many rounds as they like, and carry bullets, magazines and firearms,” Graber wrote. “The only effect of California law on armed self-defense is the restriction that a person can fire no more than 10 rounds without pause to reload.
State officials praised the ruling. Chuck Michelle, the plaintiff’s lawyer who challenged the law, said he would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision and evict it.
Vandyke’s unusual, perhaps unprecedented decision, his decision to cut a video describing his opponents was filled with a rhythm sound from his colleagues.
President Clinton’s appointee, Judge Marsha S. Belzon, wrote another opinion added by five other judges – explicitly condemning Bandique’s opposition to “roughly inappropriate” and “fresh forms.”
Berzon said the Vandyke video “inappropriately relies on material of fact that is undoubtedly outside the record” established by the litigators in lower court cases.
“His source of these record-breaking facts? The videos he recorded in his room show that he handled several different handguns and explained his understanding of their mechanisms and operations,” Berzon wrote with clear rage.
She wrote that Vandyke “essentially appointed himself as an expert witness.”
Berzon said the panel was “right to ignore” the video at hand and was not permitted by court rules, but he felt it needed to be criticized at length for “to prevent the genre from multiplying.”
Berzon writes that Bandique was more concerned than breaching the established rules to place opposition on records. His decision to advance himself as a kind of gun expert considers a panel post that if such conclusions were not able to reach the lawsuit at hand, he decided the outcome.
“The myriad rules govern the submission and presentation of expert testimony. Judge Vandice has all introduced de facto testimony on appeal and deciding along with the objections,” writes Belzon.
Belson was joined by three other Clinton appointees and two presidents, President Obama. It includes Presiding Judge Mary H. Marguia, who supports the oversight of other judges, including the chairman of the Judiciary Council of the 9th Circuit.
On Friday it was unclear whether the video would lead to other responsibilities or a rethink or reminder of court rules. Court spokesperson Katherine Rodriguez declined to comment when asked.
Jacob Charles, an associate professor of law at the Pepperdyne Caruso School of Law, said he studied and wrote about the Ninth Circuit case law around the gun.
“In my opinion, that’s undoubtedly. I don’t think there’s any other way to characterize it more than advocacy for performance,” Charles said. “The judges should not strive to become social media influencers.”
Charles has relied on written opinions by courts for centuries, and Vandice’s video “seems more like an attempt to own LIB than to play the judicial role of engaging in well-intentioned dispute resolution.”
With his own written objection, Vandice defended his video. He also offered more lightheartedness to his colleagues who defined the video – at one point he called them “amateur gun-equipped colleagues” and blasted their decisions as incompetent.
“It’s very easy to demonstrate the conceptual failure of the new majority test,” he writes.
[ad_2]Source link
