The Appeals court for DC ruled that a ban on 11+ round mags is unconstitutional. This is obviously very good news.
The opinion can be found here:
I would like to draw your attention to the following quote discussing what arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment and what would fall outside its protection.
An absolutely brilliant section from the DC appeals court decision finding that a 10 round magazine ban is unconstitutional.
On the topic of what arms are protected by the second amendment…
We take that to mean that an instrument must be designed or at least somewhat commonly used as a weapon to qualify as an arm covered by the Second Amendment. So while you could bludgeon somebody with a taxidermied marmot, or beat them with a non-stick frying pan, a ban on stuffed rodents and regulations on Teflon cookware do not implicate the Second Amendment as a threshold matter because those instruments are not designed or typically used as weapons.
D.C. Court Strikes Down Local Ban on High-Capacity Gun Magazines
A three-judge panel reversed the conviction of a man charged with possessing a 30-bullet magazine, saying it had constitutional protection.
A local law in the District of Columbia banning gun magazines that contain more than 10 bullets was struck down as unconstitutional by a three-judge panel on Thursday.
The 54-page ruling from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the highest local appeals court for the U.S. capital, reversed the criminal conviction of Tyree Benson, who was arrested in 2022 for possessing an unregistered 9-millimeter handgun with a magazine that could contain 30 bullets.
… On the District’s logic, states could ban two-round or even one-round magazines—there’s no reason a semiautomatic firearm cannot fire with an empty or ‘dummy’ magazine so long as there is a round in the chamber.
In fact, under the District’s view the state could just directly outlaw the semi-automatic firing mechanism because, by itself, that is a harmless component of a firearm and it is not a necessary feature of any gun.
For that matter, modern cartridges are not necessary for firing a gun either. If the Second Amendment applied only to those things that are strictly necessary for a gun’s operation, states could ban cartridges so long as primitive musket balls remained a legal alternative ammunition. …
A 28(j) letter (more formally known as a citation of supplemental authorities under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) 28(j)) is a short letter filed in U.S. federal appellate courts (circuit courts of appeals) to notify the court and opposing parties of new, pertinent, and significant legal authorities that come to light after a party’s briefs have been filed—or even after oral argument but before the court issues its decision.
Knee jerk Reaction: It is unclear that the local DC Attorney General’s office has the authority to seek en banc review in a major criminal matter such as this one especially if the US DOJ opposes it. Note the DC SG “intervened” in the case while the US Attorney represented the United States, as “appellee.” Obviously, I would not worry about the US DOJ seeking en banc review in Benson v. US because the U.S. Attorney’s Office for DC (run by @USAttyPirro) submitted a brief here arguing that the DC mag ban was unconstitutional under 2A. DOJ itself would not seek en banc review from a WIN. However, the Trump DOJ could “pull a Windsor” by seeking cert to SCOTUS on a circuit split (which you now have) on the 2A magazine question, and then flip sides on the merits to argue that the law is unconstitutional like Obama did in Windsor re gay rights. NOTE: If there is a threat of an en banc review by the DC SG’s office, then Trump should immediately nominate judges to the DC Court of Appeals and have the Senate confirm them with speed, which should be doable since the White House is preparing nominations of federal judges as we speak.
What’s most striking about this ruling is how straightforward it is. A major contrast from the convoluted magazine rulings from antigun courts that bend over backwards to uphold gun control. That in and of itself is evidence of its merit.
“Of course magazines are arms, guns can’t function without them. All integral components of a gun are arms. Are you stupid?”
Vs
“Magazines are not arms, but magazines under ten rounds are protected, because magazines are necessary. But you don’t need one over ten rounds! This is totally not interest balancing, we are very serious people!”
“There’s hundreds of millions of magazines out there used for lawful purposes so they are in common use.”
Vs.
“Nooooo ‘common’ doesn’t just mean common! They have to be in common use for self-defense only, other lawful purposes don’t count. And it only counts as in use for self-defense if you fire more than ten rounds!”
“Your claimed historical analogues are a joke. Trap gun laws, powder storage restrictions, and concealed carry laws are nothing like capacity limits.”
Vs.
"BOWIE KNIVES! BOWIE KNIVES! BOWIE KNIVES! Some states restricted the carry of bowie knives so no common magazines for you! Let states ban more guns you monster!
Check out Mark Smith’s (The Four Boxes Diner) latest analysis of this ruling. He also makes reference to our Cheeseman case. (Am having an issue including the link.)
Are you sure you did not mean 7 years? . Mine have been in exile for 7 years! I vividly remember the day I drove them to Pa in Dec 2018. Never did I imagine it would take this long. As you expressed, I am also very much looking forward to the day I can drive their and retrieve them. Hopefully soon while I still can. Then I may celebrate by legally purchasing a 33 round Glock mag and a PMag 50 round drum. Just because…..
I’m sure you are correct about it being seven years. I took my best guest, but you know how as we get older things were always longer ago than we remember them.
