D.C. Court Strikes a Blow for Freedom by Striking Down Magazine Ban

Washington D.C.’s highest local court has delivered a major win to Second Amendment supporters by ruling the District of Columbia’s ban on “large capacity” magazines a violation of the right to keep and bear arms. 

The decision in U.S. v. Benson, authored by Judge Joshua Deahl, makes mincemeat of the specious arguments that have been deployed in defense of bans on commonly owned magazines (and firearms like the AR-15) in courtrooms across the country. 

Some judges, for instance, have ruled that, magazines aren’t “arms” protected by the Second Amendment, but are instead more akin to gun parts. Deahl’s opinion rightfully points out the logical absurdity of that argument.

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. And bans like that would permit states to effectively eliminate any semi-automatic firing capacity and require manual reloading after each shot. 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. That would run contrary to Heller’s central command that states cannot ban the most popular weapons chosen by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes. 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.

The opinion also takes on the argument that, in order to be protected by the Second Amendment, arms must be in common use for self-defense. Magazines that can hold more than ten rounds, the District argued, are not commonly used for self-defense because the average defensive gun use sees fewer than ten shots fired. 

Heller was not concerned with how often arms were actually fired in self-defense; it asked only whether they were“typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Most firearms held in self-defense will never be fired in self-defense at all—that cannot justify a ban on ammunition simply because it is rare for law-abiding citizens to actually shoot some attacker, or because blanks might suffice to scare most attackers off without live ammunition. Moreover, we have no doubt that law-abiding citizens do regularly fire more than 10 rounds for lawful purposes like target practice and marksmanship, and the Second Amendment’s protections extend to those activities as well. 

Because 11+ magazines are in common and ubiquitous use for lawfulpurposes, the District’s outright ban on them violates the Second Amendment.

Deahl’s majority opinion repeatedly references the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding California’s magazine ban in Duncan v. Bonta, which is timely considering that the Supreme Court has the opportunity to grant cert in that case as early as next week. 

I am really here for all the bashing of Duncan.

In this excerpt, the Court again mocks the Ninth Circuit for saying ownership statistics are too “simplistic.”

The Ninth Circuit said that, of course, because if they said otherwise they’d have to strike down CA’s ban. pic.twitter.com/L1LMqvFqkB

— SAF (@2AFDN) March 6, 2026

One of the most striking things about the Benson opinion is that it clearly takes some issue with the Supreme Court’s rulings in Heller and Bruen, but it still faithfully adheres to those decisions instead of trying to find a way around their holdings or ignoring them completely, as many othter courts have done. That is, of course, what should be done, but given the torturous misreadings of Bruen and Heller by so many other judges it’s refreshing to see the majority color inside the lines of the Supreme Court’s precedence. 

The D.C. Court of Appeals is a local court, so this decision doesn’t create a circuit court split at the federal level, but Benson still provides SCOTUS with a compelling argument to grant cert in Duncan and strike down these magazine bans; not only in California but across the country. I don’t know if Benson will have an impact on any of the justices and their views on granting cert, but it absolutely should move the needle towards accepting a magazine ban case and striking down these infringements once and for all. 

One final note: the Trump administration declined to defend D.C.’s magazine ban (though the local government continued its own defense). Second Amendment Foundation’s Kostas Moros believes the DOJ’s decision had an impact on the panel’s decision, and he may very well be right. 

And I’d be remiss not to thank @AAGDhillon, @AGPamBondi, and the rest of the team at US DOJ for deciding to no longer defend the DC magazine ban.

I think that played a huge role in getting a skeptical court to finally issue the correct ruling. https://t.co/NM5ZX7eBem

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) March 6, 2026

Regardless of what kind of impact it had on the panel, declining to defend the magazine ban (and actually arguing against it) was the right thing to do from a constitutional perspective, and the DOJ’s decision should be recognized and applauded by Second Amendment advocates. 

Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.