Circuit Court Rules D.C. Mag Restriction Is Constitutional

Gun-rights groups looking to get Washington, D.C.’s restriction on firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds declared unconstitutional have run into a brick wall at the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit.  

Despite arguments to the contrary, on Tuesday, the court ruled that such magazines do, indeed, pass the Bruen standard and that the ban could stand. Plaintiffs in the case Hansen v. D.C. contend that the ban didn’t meet either of the two standards set down by the U.S. Supreme Court in that pivotal case, particularly the “historical precedent” requirement.

However, using the term ELCMs (extra-large capacity magazines) throughout its ruling, the court agreed with an earlier decision by a district court that historical restrictions on particularly dangerous weapons and weapons capable of unprecedented lethality constitute a relevantly similar tradition.

“Those laws are commensurate with the District’s justification of its magazine cap to counter the growing use of [ELCMs] to facilitate crime and, specifically, to perpetrate mass shootings,” the ruling stated.

The ruling was divided, with Judge Justin R. Walker dissenting. In his lengthy dissenting opinion, Judge Walker argued that since such magazines are in common use, banning them violates the Second Amendment.

“There is no history and tradition of banning arms in common use for lawful purposes,” he wrote.

After a thorough discussion of several important Supreme Court cases, including the ruling in Heller v. D.C., Judge Walker wrote that there is no doubt that the majority of the D.C. Circuit got the ruling wrong.

“D.C.’s ban on commonly used plus-ten magazines conflicts with Heller’s holding that the government cannot ban an arm in common use for lawful purposes,” he wrote. “That alone decides this case.

“In addition, D.C. has failed to show that its ban is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition — even assuming Heller left it an open question. That too is a sufficient reason to hold that D.C.’s ban is unconstitutional.”

Pro-gun groups and individual plaintiffs have met with little satisfaction in the courts lately concerning the matter of normal-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. In July, a New Jersey District Court ruled that the state’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” was unconstitutional but left New Jersey’s magazine ban in place.

Last year, the 7^th Circuit Court ruled that Illinois’ magazine ban could stand. One case challenging such bans recently made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the court chose not to consider the constitutionality of the law.

The Biden-Harris administration has been seeking a ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds for the past few years, so far with no progress on the matter. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), such magazines make up about three-quarters of the firearms magazines owned by U.S. gun owners.