On March 5, 2026, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued a major Second Amendment decision in Benson v. United States, striking down Washington D.C.’s ban on firearm magazines holding more than ten rounds. The ruling represents one of the most forceful pro-Second Amendment opinions since the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The decision not only invalidates the District’s magazine capacity law but also underscores a constitutional principle that could have sweeping consequences nationwide: arms that are widely owned by law-abiding citizens cannot be banned outright.

---

The Case and the Court’s Holding

The case arose after Tyree Benson was convicted under several District firearm statutes, including possession of a “large capacity” magazine—defined as one capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. The firearm he possessed had a 30-round magazine.

The appellate court reversed all of Benson’s convictions after concluding that the magazine ban itself violated the Second Amendment. The court reasoned that magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds are “arms in common and ubiquitous use by law-abiding citizens across this country.” Benson v US et al 23-CV-0541 FI…

Because such magazines are widely possessed for lawful purposes—including self-defense and training—the court held that the District could not prohibit them outright.

The ruling emphasized three key points:

1. Magazines are “arms.”
   They are integral components that facilitate armed self-defense by feeding ammunition into firearms.
2. Magazines over ten rounds are overwhelmingly common.
   The court noted that hundreds of millions exist in civilian hands nationwide.
3. There is no historical tradition of banning arms in common use.
   Under the constitutional framework established by Heller and Bruen, that fact alone makes a categorical ban unconstitutional.

As the court bluntly summarized:

“Because these magazines are arms in common and ubiquitous use… the District’s magazine capacity ban violates the Second Amendment.” Benson v US et al 23-CV-0541 FI…

---

The Constitutional Framework: Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi

The court grounded its reasoning squarely in modern Supreme Court doctrine.

1. The Heller Principle: Common Arms Cannot Be Banned

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban and established that the Second Amendment protects weapons “in common use” for lawful purposes.

The Benson court treated that rule as decisive.

Handguns could not be banned because they were the most commonly chosen firearm for self-defense. The same reasoning, the court said, applies to the magazines that come standard with them.

2. Bruen’s Historical Test

The court also relied heavily on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which replaced the old “interest-balancing” approach with a historical inquiry.

Under Bruen:

1. If the Second Amendment covers the conduct,
2. The government must show a historical tradition of similar regulation.

The District of Columbia failed that test.

The court found no historical analogue for banning widely owned arms.

3. Rahimi and Dangerous Individuals

Finally, the court cited United States v. Rahimi, which upheld restrictions on individuals who pose a threat of violence.

But Rahimi dealt with who can possess firearms, not what arms can be banned. The Benson court emphasized that distinction.

---

Why the Court Rejected Magazine Limits

The ruling rejected several arguments commonly used to defend magazine capacity laws.

“They Are Not Really Arms”

The District argued that magazines are merely accessories.

The court rejected this outright. Magazines feed ammunition into firearms and therefore facilitate armed self-defense, placing them squarely within the Second Amendment’s protection.

“They Are Too Dangerous”

The court also dismissed the argument that magazines holding more than ten rounds are unusually dangerous.

Under Heller, weapons may be banned only if they are “dangerous and unusual.”

But the court noted that magazines over ten rounds are anything but unusual. In fact, they are standard equipment for many of the most popular firearms sold in America. Benson v US et al 23-CV-0541 FI…

“They Are Rarely Needed for Self-Defense”

The government argued that people rarely fire more than a few rounds in self-defense.

The court responded that constitutional rights are not measured by how often they are used. Most defensive firearms are never fired in self-defense at all—but that fact obviously does not justify banning them.

---

Implications for Gun Laws Across the Country

The ruling directly challenges magazine bans in multiple jurisdictions, including:

• California
• New York
• New Jersey
• Massachusetts
• Connecticut
• Hawaii
• Maryland
• Rhode Island
• Vermont
• Washington
• Oregon
• District of Columbia

These unconstitutional laws, including the ones here in Massachusetts, generally limit magazines to 10 rounds (or occasionally 15).

The Benson decision creates a clear doctrinal conflict with several federal appellate rulings that have upheld similar bans.

Such conflicts are precisely the type that frequently draw the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court. It remains to be seen if SCOTUS will finally take up this and the issue of bans on what are falsely called “assault weapons.”