Appeals Court Strikes Down DC Ban on High-Capacity Gun Magazines as Unconstitutional

An appeals court in the District of Columbia has struck down a local ban on gun magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, ruling the restriction unconstitutional in a decision that could have far-reaching implications for similar laws nationwide.

In Thursday’s ruling, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed the conviction of Tyree Benson, who was arrested in 2022 for possessing a handgun with a magazine capable of holding 30 bullets. The court’s 2-1 decision effectively invalidates D.C.’s magazine capacity restrictions on Second Amendment grounds.

“Magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition are ubiquitous in our country, numbering in the hundreds of millions, accounting for about half of the magazines in the hands of our citizenry, and they come standard with the most popular firearms sold in America today,” wrote Judge Joshua Deahl for the majority.

The ruling hinged on the legal principle that commonly owned firearms and accessories are protected under the Second Amendment. “Because these magazines are arms in common and ubiquitous use by law-abiding citizens across this country, we agree with Benson and the United States that the District’s outright ban on them violates the Second Amendment,” Deahl continued.

Notably, the U.S. Department of Justice, which initially prosecuted Benson and defended the ban’s constitutionality in early appeals, has since changed its position and now concedes that the ban violates Second Amendment protections. The District of Columbia, however, continues to defend the law’s constitutionality.

The court’s decision extends beyond just the magazine ban, as Judge Deahl explained: “Because Benson could not have registered, procured a license to carry, or lawfully possessed ammunition for his firearm given that it was equipped with a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds, we likewise reverse his convictions for possession of an unregistered firearm, carrying a pistol without a license, and unlawful possession of ammunition.”

Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby issued a dissenting opinion, criticizing the majority for failing to distinguish between different magazine capacities. “The majority bases its common usage analysis on ownership statistics that show only that magazines holding 11, 15, or 17 rounds of ammunition are in common use,” she wrote, arguing that the statistics “do not support the conclusion that the particularly lethal 30-round magazine, such as the one Mr. Benson possessed here, is in common use for self-defense. It simply is not.”

The ruling creates a complex legal situation in the district, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia had previously upheld the constitutionality of the same local law in a different case. It remains unclear how these conflicting decisions will be reconciled.

The District now faces a choice: appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, or request that the local appeals court review the ruling with a larger panel of judges. Either path could lead to a definitive ruling on the constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions, potentially affecting similar laws in states and municipalities across the country.

This decision comes amid ongoing national debate over gun regulations, with advocates for stricter gun laws arguing that high-capacity magazines enable more deadly mass shootings, while Second Amendment supporters contend that such restrictions infringe on constitutional rights without meaningfully reducing gun violence.

The ruling represents another significant development in Second Amendment jurisprudence following the Supreme Court’s 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, which established a new test for evaluating gun regulations based on historical tradition rather than means-end scrutiny.

As this case potentially moves toward further appeals, it could become an important test of how courts will apply the Bruen framework to specific gun regulations like magazine capacity limits that are common in many jurisdictions but increasingly challenged as unconstitutional restrictions on the right to bear arms.