A federal appeals court judge handled and explained handguns in a video as part of his dissent to a Second Amendment case, a move a fellow judge called “wildly improper.”

The Ninth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals voted 7-4 to uphold California’s ban on large-capacity magazines on Thursday. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a Trump appointee, wrote a dissenting opinion and added a link to the gun video he produced in his chambers.

The nearly 19-minute video started with Judge VanDyke sitting at his desk wearing his black jurist robe below a gun mounted on the wall. He said he didn’t agree with the majority opinion that firearm magazines that hold more than 10 bullets are an optional accessory and not an actual part of the gun that is protected by the Second Amendment.

“I think anyone with a basic familiarity with firearms could show you that this attempted distinction is simply inconsistent with reality,” Judge VanDyke said. He then transitioned to video of the court hearing where he questioned a California state attorney about the workings of semi-automatic weapons.

Judge VanDyke said the video showed the lawyer and members of the court did not have an understanding of how guns work. He said he originally planned to explain about what he considered their lack of knowledge in writing but, “in this instance showing is much more effective than telling.”

He then transitioned to him handling handguns and loading magazines into them as he explained the parts of the gun. As part of the video, the judge disassembled a handgun and also showed the gun he says he carries for self-defense.

He argued that if California could ban a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets, there was nothing stopping it from banning magazines that hold more than one bullet.

Judge VanDyke said he hoped the video would help explain how magazines are integral parts of a gun in the same way as grips and triggers.

The judge said he had rendered all of the guns used in the video as inoperable for safety purposes.

A fellow judge blasted Judge VanDyke in a concurring opinion.

“Judge VanDyke has in essence appointed himself an an expert witness in this case, providing a factual presentation with the express aim of convincing the readers of his view of the facts without complying with any of the procedural safeguards that usually apply to experts and their testimony,” Judge Marsha Berzon, a nominee of President Clinton, wrote.

Judge Berzon added that the video was egregious and not technically part of the dissenting opinion because the rules require verdicts to be in writing.

“Even in an age of online videos, written opinions are more clear, useful, and accessible,” Judge Berzon wrote.

She said the video should be ignored from his dissent.

Judge VanDyke responded to her criticism, stating, “We have long included links to videos in our court’s opinions, as well as pictures, timelines, and diagrams. Nobody thought that was a problem until now.”

Constitutional law analyst Josh Blackman says while judges routinely cite videos, diagrams, and other materials to explain complex concepts, it was “novel” that Judge VanDyke generated a video of his own.

“I don’t think there is any rule against videos because no one ever considered this would be done,” Mr. Blackman says.