In Benson v. United States, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals—not to be confused with the federal United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit—ruled that Washington, D.C.’s ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds is unconstitutional.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals is the highest court in D.C., functioning similarly to a state supreme court.
Magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition are ubiquitous in our country, numbering in the hundreds of millions, accounting forabout half of the magazines in the hands of our citizenry, and they come standard with the most popular firearms sold in America today. Because these magazines are arms in common and ubiquitous use by law-abiding citizens across this country, we agree with Benson and the United States that the District’s outright ban on them violates the Second Amendment. See generally District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).
We therefore reverse Benson’s conviction for violating the District’s magazine capacity ban. And because Benson could not have registered, procured a license to carry, or lawfully possessed ammunition for his firearm given that it was equipped with a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds, we likewise reverse his convictions for possession of an unregistered firearm, carrying a pistol without a license, and unlawful possession of ammunition. In light of our disposition, we do not reach Benson’s independent Second Amendment challenges to the District’s firearm registration and licensing schemes, nor do we reach his Fourth Amendment challenge to his underlying search and seizure.
