High Court Weighs D.C. Magazine Limits and Constitutional Gun Rights

2nd Amendment text on old parchment paper.

Washington D.C.’s ban on firearms magazines holding more than 10 rounds faces Supreme Court scrutiny as gun owners claim their Second Amendment rights are being infringed, while the government maintains public safety justifies the restriction.

Key Takeaways

A D.C. Circuit panel upheld Washington’s 10-round magazine cap, citing Prohibition-era restrictions as historical precedent.
Four licensed firearm owners argue larger magazines with up to 17 rounds are essential for legitimate self-defense.
The case hinges on the 2022 Supreme Court Bruen decision requiring gun restrictions to have “historical analogues”.
Judge Justin Walker dissented, arguing magazines with more than 10 rounds are commonly used for lawful purposes.
Violation of the magazine cap is a felony punishable by up to three years in prison and a $12,500 fine.

Legal Battle Over Magazine Capacity

The District of Columbia’s Firearms Registration Amendment Act of 2008, which criminalizes possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, has reached the Supreme Court after being upheld by lower courts. Gun owners who challenged the law argue the restriction violates their constitutional right to bear arms, particularly for self-defense purposes. The petitioners, all legally licensed to carry concealed firearms, contend that larger capacity magazines containing up to 17 rounds are necessary for effective self-defense in emergency situations.

Gun Owners Take DC Magazine Restrictions To Supreme Court

Gun owners in Washington, D.C. are appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge a local law that bans magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The case, known as Hanson v. District of Columbia,… pic.twitter.com/VS9Pvo0Ct2

— The Wall Street Chronicles (@ThewallstChron) March 2, 2025

The D.C. Circuit Court panel rejected their challenge in a 2-1 decision, following the framework established by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That 2022 ruling requires gun restrictions to have “historical analogues” – similar regulations that existed when the Second Amendment was adopted. The majority opinion found that Prohibition-era laws restricting high-capacity weapons provided sufficient historical precedent for the current magazine limitation.

Constitutional Arguments and Precedents

The legal battle centers on whether magazines exceeding 10 rounds qualify as “arms” protected by the Second Amendment. The circuit court panel acknowledged they are protected, writing “A magazine is necessary to make meaningful an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense. 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.'” “Magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition are arms in common use for lawful purposes. Therefore, the government cannot ban them,” wrote Circuit Judge Justin Walker in his dissent.

The majority, however, determined that the government’s public safety interest in preventing mass shootings justified the restriction. They cited historical parallels to Prohibition-era laws restricting weapons with high fatality potential. Attorney George Lyon Jr., representing the petitioners, plans to appeal this reasoning, arguing the panel misinterpreted what constitutes a valid historical analogue under the Bruen standard.

Public Safety vs. Individual Rights

Washington D.C. defends its magazine capacity restriction as a crucial measure to reduce mass shooting casualties. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras wrote in support of the ban stating “Just as states and the District enacted sweeping laws restricting possession of high-capacity weapons in an attempt to reduce violence during the Prohibition era, so can the District now.” The government maintains the restriction imposes only a modest burden on Second Amendment rights while addressing significant public safety concerns.

The petitioners counter that the magazine restriction effectively bans commonly owned firearms components used for lawful purposes, violating the standard set in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision. They emphasize that millions of Americans own magazines exceeding 10 rounds for legitimate self-defense purposes, making them “in common use” and thus protected under Supreme Court precedent. The punishment for violating the ban – up to three years imprisonment and $12,500 in fines – underscores the serious implications for gun owners.

National Implications

The Supreme Court’s decision could have far-reaching consequences for similar magazine capacity restrictions in other jurisdictions. Several states including California, New Jersey, and New York have enacted comparable limits on magazine capacity, all facing legal challenges. Gun rights advocates view this case as an opportunity for the Court to clarify Second Amendment protections for standard-capacity magazines following the Bruen decision’s historical test framework.

The Court’s decision to hear or reject this appeal will signal its willingness to further define the boundaries of Second Amendment protections in the wake of its recent expansions of gun rights. For now, Washington D.C. residents remain subject to the 10-round magazine limitation while awaiting the Supreme Court’s determination on whether the case merits review.