This dissent from Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a Trump nominee, is pretty shocking. In addition to repeatedly dismissing the threat of mass shootings, he accuses his colleagues of failing to empathize with gun-owners because they're protected by U.S. marshals. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opin… 
VanDyke's dismissive reference to security for his colleagues' " upper-middleclass home[s]" is especially startling in light of the attack on Judge Esther Salas just last year. Her husband and son were shot to death—due, in part, to lack of security. npr.org/2020/11/20/936…
VanDyke also mocks Judge Andrew Hurwitz for pointing out that a fellow judge was killed in a mass shooting, writing that Hurwitz's "personal anecdotes" and "exaggeration of risks" demonstrates that he cannot analyze the Second Amendment in an "objective and detached manner."
VanDyke accuses his more liberal colleagues of judging in bad faith, writing: "The majority of our court distrusts gun owners and thinks the Second Amendment is a vestigial organ of their living constitution." The civility really shines through ... cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opin…
VanDyke says his colleagues are willing to accept deaths from traffic violence because they like and use cars, but aren't willing to accept deaths from mass shootings because they don't like or use guns. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opin…
As @petersagal points out, Judge Hurwitz's response is very powerful—much more thoughtful and eloquent than VanDyke's polemic—and worth reading in full. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opin…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
