DC Court of Appeals has ruled that DC's ban on magazines over ten rounds is unconstitutional.

X ^ | 3/5/26 | SAF

[CFW]

BREAKING - in Benson v. US, the DC Court of Appeals - not to be confused with the federal DC Circuit - has ruled that DC's ban on magazines over ten rounds is unconstitutional.

This is the highest court in DC, akin to its Supreme Court.

In the summary of the ruling, the majority appears to adopt what SAF and many others have long argued in accordance with Heller: commonality alone grants Second Amendment protection.

"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."

---

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; ban; banglist; courts; dc; magazines

[CFW]

No news articles on any 2nd Amendment/firearms sites as of yet, but this is great news.

[CFW]

The court says magazines are arms because they facilitate armed self-defense, and can be used for other lawful purposes too, like target practice.

[Fireone]

Democrats finally get their “common sense gun laws” they’ve been wishing for.
Not sure this is what they were seeking, but tough crap.

[CFW]

SAF

@2AFDN

· 1h

The Court says it will answer three questions (and spoiler, we like their answers):

(1) whether 11+ magazines are arms protected by the Second Amendment;

(2) the extent to which 11+ magazines are in “common use” for lawful purposes, like self-defense; and

(3) whether there is any history and tradition of banning similar arms.

[faithhopecharity]

good news especially considering it is the DC court

[Magnum44]

Next up, Colorado

[CFW]

Good news indeed!

The Court dismisses the contention that magazines by themselves are not arms, because any part of a gun (or even a whole gun, without ammo) is harmless by itself.

The Court mocks the Ninth Circuit's Duncan ruling, approvingly citing the VanDyke and Bumatay dissents.

[MileHi]

Yep!

[PROCON]

Good news but there's still multiple states, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington that still ban these magazines.

The Supremes need to overthrow this silly law.

[CFW]

The Court points out that by DC's logic (that magazines over ten rounds are not necessary to fire a gun), you could basically ban all semiauto guns, and even modern cartridges, since muskets could still work!

[PROCON]

RKBA Ping List

This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.

More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.

[CFW]

The Court says that any components integral to a gun's operation are arms.

[CFW]

The Court confirms that when arms are ubiquitous, the 2A analysis is over. They are protected, period.

Yet another point that Heller was very clear on, yet antigun courts pretended to not understand.

[Lurker]

Now do Illinois.

L

[CFW]

In magazine cases, a common bad faith attack by state governments and antigun groups has been their denial that magazines over ten rounds are common.

This defies common sense; such magazines come standard with most handguns sold in the majority of the states, so on just that basis alone, of course they are common. And that doesn't count extra magazines people buy, magazines that come with semiauto rifles, etc.

The Court here cuts through that bad faith quickly. Magazines over ten rounds are common.

[Jet Jaguar]

It is great news! Thanks for posting.

[CFW]

In a footnote, the majority points out that the dissent's whining about the English study or the NSSF data is unpersuasive because the dissent (and DC) offer nothing to the contrary.

[CFW]

DC, like antigun states, argued that "dangerous and unusual" actually means "unusually dangerous."

The Court is having none of that, saying that the Supreme Court "tends not to speak in code."

[CFW]

Great point that if the test were "unusually dangerous," then handgun bans would stand, given handguns are more dangerous than most other weapons.

Not loving the reference to "assault weapons," but that this Court is not super pro-gun (an Obama judge joined the majority) yet still reached the right result is encouraging.

[Fai Mao]

The same logic is used in limiting firearms is used to curtail other rights.

The best example are anti smoking laws that forbid smoking in private establishments like restaurants. If Burger King wants to allow smoking in the dining room, it should be allowed. If Wendy’s wants to be smoke free then that should be their choice.