The District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the city’s highest court, has ruled that the District’s ban on firearm magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds violates the Second Amendment.
The landmark decision marks a major victory for gun owners and constitutional advocates who have long argued that the District’s strict firearm laws infringe on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.
The ruling came in the case of Tyree Benson v. United States, where the court concluded that magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds, often labeled by gun control advocates as “high-capacity magazines,” are protected arms under the Constitution.
“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,” the court wrote.
Because these magazines are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, including self-defense, the court ruled that banning them outright violates the Second Amendment.
The court relied heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court’s modern Second Amendment precedents, including District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022).
Those decisions established that arms “in common use” by law-abiding citizens cannot be banned outright.
According to the court, magazines holding more than ten rounds clearly meet that standard.
“Hundreds of millions” of these magazines exist in the United States, the opinion noted, and they account for roughly half of the magazines owned by American gun owners.
The judges emphasized that these magazines are not unusual or exotic weapons. Instead, they come standard with many of the most widely sold handguns and rifles in the country.
In other words: they are the norm.
The case began after Tyree Benson was charged with several firearm-related offenses after police found him with a semi-automatic firearm equipped with a 30-round magazine.
But the appeals court ruled that because the underlying law banning magazines over ten rounds is unconstitutional, Benson’s conviction for possessing a “large capacity ammunition feeding device” cannot stand.
Benson had also been convicted of possessing an unregistered firearm, carrying a pistol without a license, and unlawful possession of ammunition. The court ruled that because Benson could not legally register the firearm due to the ban itself, those convictions were also overturned.
D.C. officials tried to defend the law by claiming that larger magazines are not necessary for self-defense and therefore could be banned.
The court rejected that argument outright.
Under Supreme Court precedent, the judges explained, the government cannot ban arms simply because lawmakers believe they are unnecessary.
If an arm is commonly owned by Americans for lawful purposes, it cannot be prohibited.
The court also dismissed the claim that magazines are merely accessories and not protected arms.
Magazines are integral components of modern firearms, the court said, because they load and feed ammunition into the gun.
Without them, many firearms could not function as designed.
The post Major Second Amendment Victory: Washington, DC’s 10-Round Magazine Ban Ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL by D.C. Court of Appeals appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.