1 Trending: 17 Times James Talarico Made Us Wonder If He Was Created In A Lab

2 Trending: Trump Despises RINOs. So Why Is He Reportedly About To Endorse One Of The Swamp’s Biggest?

3 Trending: 10 Times John Cornyn Betrayed Trump And MAGA

4 Trending: Endorsing Cornyn Jeopardizes Trump’s Legacy On Immigration

Appeals Court Rules D.C.’s Gun Magazine Restriction Is Unconstitutional

‘Because these magazines are arms in common and ubiquitous use by law abiding citizens across this country, we agree … that the District’s outright ban on them violates the Second Amendment.’

Share Article on Facebook

Share Article on Twitter

Share Article on Truth Social

Share Article via Email

In a big win for the Constitution, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that Washington, D.C.’s gun magazine restriction is unconstitutional.

In a 2-1 ruling, the three-judge panel found that the federal district’s ban on firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds violates the Second Amendment. Judges Joshua Deahl (Trump appointee) and Catharine Easterly (Obama appointee) comprised the majority, while Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby (Bush 43 appointee) dissented.

“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,” Deahl wrote for the majority. “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.”

The case was brought by plaintiff Tyree Benson, who, as described by the court, was charged with several gun-related offenses after law enforcement discovered that he was in possession of “an unregistered semiautomatic firearm equipped with a 30-round magazine.” Among the four charges levied against him were those for unlawful “possession of a ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device'” and “possession of an unregistered firearm.”

Benson filed two pretrial motions in response. One challenged the police officers’ search of him as a Fourth Amendment violation, while the other aimed to dismiss the charges based on claims that D.C.’s firearm restrictions — namely its “’large capacity’ magazine ban and … registration and licensure schemes” — violated his Second Amendment rights.

The district court denied both motions, and Benson was ultimately convicted. As a result, he “received suspended sentences and one year of probation, and was barred from ever possessing a firearm in the future,” according to the D.C. Circuit.

In finding that D.C.’s magazine restriction violates the Second Amendment and existing Supreme Court precedent, Deahl ruled that Benson’s conviction “for violating the District’s magazine capacity ban” is void. The court similarly threw out his convictions “for possession of an unregistered firearm, carrying a pistol without a license, and unlawful possession of ammunition” due to the fact that he “could not have registered, procured a license to carry, or lawfully possessed ammunition for his firearm given that it was equipped with a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds.”

The majority’s decision does not address Benson’s Second Amendment challenges to D.C.’s gun registration and licensing schemes. Nor does it make a determination on his Fourth Amendment challenge to his search and seizure.

Blackburne-Rigsby argued in her dissent that the majority’s ruling is “inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent1 as well as with all of the state2 and federal3 courts of appeal that have upheld challenges to states’ [large-capacity magazine] LCM bans.”

“The District’s LCM ban should survive Mr. Benson’s facial challenge to its constitutionality because there are numerous circumstances to which the LCM ban lawfully applies. Mr. Benson’s possession of a 30-round LCM is one such example,” Blackburne-Rigsby wrote. “The District’s LCM ban is constitutional and should be upheld. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.”

The constitutionality of laws restricting gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is an issue that’s been circulating the federal appeals courts for some time. The matter is front and center in Duncan v. Bonta, which centers around a challenge to California’s gun magazine restrictions.

The case is currently awaiting consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court. At least four justices must agree to take up the case before it can be heard and ruled on by the court.

D.C. Court of Appeals

How Federal Law Enforcement Rescued Memphis From Third-World Murder Stats

SCOTUS Rules That Courts Should Defer To Immigration Judges On Asylum Cases

Gun Restriction At The Heart Of Hunter Biden Indictment Takes Center Stage At SCOTUS

SCOTUS Shuts Down New York’s Bid To Redistrict GOP Seat Ahead Of 2026 Midterms

What’s Next In The Fight To Stop Schools From Transing Kids After SCOTUS Victory

Blue State Failure Is Destroying Federalism And The Constitution

Why Islam Seeks Shelter Under The Banner Of The Left

The Paramount Purchase Could Revive American Excellence In Hollywood

Visit The Federalist on Facebook

Visit The Federalist on Twitter

Visit The Federalist on Instagram

Watch The Federalist on YouTube

View The Federalist RSS Feed

Listen to The Federalist Podcast

© 2026 The Federalist, A wholly independent division of FDRLST Media. All rights reserved.

Visit The Federalist on Facebook

Visit The Federalist on Twitter

Visit The Federalist on Instagram

Watch The Federalist on YouTube

View The Federalist RSS Feed

Listen to The Federalist Podcast

© The Federalist