Court Strikes Down D.C. Magazine Ban — A Warning for States Pushing Similar Laws
- Austin Reville
- 15 hours ago
- 3 min read
A major court ruling this week dealt another blow to magazine capacity bans, declaring Washington D.C.’s restriction on magazines holding more than 10 rounds unconstitutional.
The Benson v. United States decision from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals found that magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds are in common use and therefore protected by the Second Amendment. The court overturned the conviction of Tyree Benson, who had been charged under the city’s magazine ban.
Judge Joshua Deahl (A Donald Trump Appointee), writing for the majority, explained the reasoning clearly:
“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.”
Because of that widespread lawful use, the court concluded the District’s outright ban violated the Second Amendment.
Applying the “Common Use” Standard
The court relied heavily on the framework established in District of Columbia v. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment protects firearms and related arms that are in “common use” for lawful purposes. The majority rejected the District’s argument that magazines themselves should not be protected because they are not standalone weapons.
Judge Deahl pointed out that using that logic would allow governments to ban nearly every component of a modern firearm. He wrote:
“The more sensible view is that magazines of all sizes, like other core components of firearms, are arms that are covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text.”
The court also emphasized the sheer number of magazines owned by law-abiding Americans. With hundreds of millions in circulation nationwide, the court concluded they clearly meet the standard of being in common use.
A Divided Court
The decision was issued in a 2–1 ruling. Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby (A Bill Clinton Appointee) dissented, arguing that extended magazines — particularly those holding 30 rounds — are especially dangerous and not commonly used for self-defense.
The majority rejected that view, holding that the Constitution protects arms commonly possessed by citizens regardless of whether governments view them as particularly dangerous.
Another Blow to D.C. Gun Laws
Washington D.C.’s gun laws have been at the center of multiple landmark Second Amendment cases over the past two decades. Beginning with District of Columbia v. Heller, courts have repeatedly struck down or forced revisions to the city’s restrictive firearm regulations. This new ruling adds to that growing list and could influence other lawsuits challenging magazine bans across the country.
Why This Matters for Minnesota
Here in Minnesota, lawmakers have introduced proposals that mirror the type of restrictions the D.C. court just struck down — including bans on magazines holding more than 10 rounds. As those proposals continue moving through the legislature, rulings like Benson v. United States become increasingly important.
Courts across the country are being asked to apply the legal framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires firearm laws to be consistent with America’s historical tradition of gun regulation. If that standard is applied consistently, many modern magazine bans could face serious constitutional challenges.
The Bigger Picture
Right now, courts across the United States are divided on magazine capacity restrictions. Some have upheld them. Others have struck them down. That growing split between jurisdictions makes it increasingly likely that the Supreme Court of the United States will eventually need to address the issue directly. When that happens, the Court will likely determine whether magazine bans nationwide are compatible with the Second Amendment.
A Constitutional Question Still Waiting for an Answer
As politicians in Minnesota and other states push similar restrictions, cases like this will carry more weight. Each ruling adds to the legal pressure building around magazine bans and the broader question of what firearms and components are protected under the Constitution.
Ultimately, many gun owners hope the Supreme Court will finally step in and settle the issue once and for all. Until then, the legal fight over magazine bans — and the scope of the Second Amendment — will continue to play out in courtrooms across the country.
Here at 2 If By Sea Tactical we strive to bring you the best experience in the firearms world. As we continue to grow the media arm of 2 If By Sea, make sure you keep tuning in to our Youtube and Rumble channels and right here at “The Patriot’s Almanac” to stay informed on the latest happenings in the firearm world! But we are not lawyers, so this isn't legal guidance. We are proud to be Southern Minnesota source for all things 2A.
Stay sharp, stay informed, and stay ready.
Comments