A federal appeals court has upheld Washington, DC’s ban on “high-capacity” magazines, enforcing the city’s 10-round limit for firearms.
In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel declined to issue an injunction requested by four gun owners. The plaintiffs argued that they needed more than 10 rounds in their firearms for self-defense, but both the lower court and the appeals court ruled against them.
“Large capacity magazines have given rise to an unprecedented societal concern: mass shootings,” wrote Judges Patricia A. Millett and Douglas H. Ginsburg of the D.C. Circuit Court in the majority opinion.
The ruling required the judges to address two issues raised by a recent Supreme Court decision setting new precedent for gun regulation. First, they examined whether the Second Amendment covers magazines with more than 10 rounds. Second, they considered whether banning such magazines aligns with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The court did conclude that high-capacity magazines are protected under the Second Amendment. “A magazine is necessary to make meaningful an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense,” the panel stated. “To hold otherwise would allow the government to sidestep the Second Amendment with a regulation prohibiting possession at the component level, ‘such as a firing pin.’”
However, the judges ultimately upheld the restriction on magazines holding more than 10 rounds, citing historical precedents supporting similar limitations. They referenced prohibition-era restrictions on machine guns and regulations on other lethal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and knives, viewing these as examples of historical firearm regulations aimed at limiting “unprecedented lethality,” according to the Washington Post.
“Although these laws may target different crimes than does the magazine cap, they share the same basic purpose: To inhibit … unprecedentedly lethal criminal activity,” the court argued.
In his dissenting opinion, Judge Justin R. Walker argued that “the government cannot ban an arm in common use for lawful purposes.” He maintained that the city had failed to show that the ban aligns with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Walker emphasized that all three judges agreed high-capacity magazines are protected under the Second Amendment for self-defense, which should have been sufficient to overturn the ban.
