The District of Columbia’s long-standing prohibition on high-capacity magazines was struck down today in a 2-1 decision by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The ruling, which declares the ban a violation of the Second Amendment, has sparked immediate celebration from gun rights organizations and marks a significant shift in the legal landscape surrounding firearm accessories.
The case, Benson v. U.S., centered on Tyree Benson, who challenged his conviction for possessing magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.
In a notable turn of events, the United States government—which originally prosecuted Benson—shifted its stance during the proceedings to concede that the ban was unconstitutional.
Associate Judge Joshua Deahl, an appointee of Donald Trump, authored the majority opinion.
“Appellant Tyree Benson argues that ban contravenes the Second Amendment so that his conviction for violating it should be vacated,” Deahl wrote. “The United States, which prosecuted Benson in the underlying case and defended the ban’s constitutionality in the initial round of appellate briefing, now concedes that this ban violates the Second Amendment.”
Deahl was joined in the majority by Judge Catherine Friend Easterly, an appointee of Barack Obama. Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby filed a dissenting opinion.
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) hailed the decision as a landmark moment. CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb described the federal government’s change in position as a “legal tectonic shift” that could influence similar bans currently active in several states.
“This is a major Second Amendment ruling,” Gottlieb said. “You could say that it is the ‘second Shot Heard Around the World.’”
Gottlieb further noted that the ruling provides a robust defense against future legislative attempts to limit magazine capacity. “Whether anti-gun lawmakers and liberal judges realize it or not,” he stated, “Judge Deahl’s opinion means the Second Amendment has teeth. The gun prohibition lobby just got smacked, because this ruling puts one of their major arguments in the corner, where it belongs.”
Despite the ruling, the legal battle may not be over. The District of Columbia has not yet announced if it will seek an en banc review, which would involve a rehearing by the full court of appeals. For now, however, the ban remains unenforceable following this appellate decision.
READ: The Shield Of The Americas: Rubio Unveils New 13-Nation Security Bloc
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
