Big ruling out of D.C. last week, and the internet immediately lit up with “circuit split!” and “SCOTUS incoming!” posts.
Pump the brakes.
Yes, this is a big win. No, it’s not the endgame. At least not yet.
According to Washington Gun Law’s breakdown, the case, Benson v. United States, comes from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, not the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. That distinction matters. If this had come from the federal circuit, we’d likely have the kind of clean circuit split that forces the Supreme Court’s hand. But it didn’t. So technically, no split.
Still, what the court did here is significant.
The D.C. court struck down the district’s magazine ban on a facial challenge. Not a narrow ruling. Not a procedural dodge. A straight-up constitutional rejection.
And here’s the key: they actually applied Heller and Bruen the way they’re written.
The majority opinion opened with a blunt reality check: magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “ubiquitous,” numbering in the hundreds of millions, and come standard with many of the most popular firearms sold in America today. That matters, because once you hit “common use,” the constitutional analysis gets very short, very fast.
The court walked through a straightforward framework. First question: are 11+ round magazines “arms” under the Second Amendment? Answer: yes. They feed ammunition into firearms, and ammunition is necessary for a firearm to function. No gymnastics. No philosophical detours. Just plain English.
Second question: are they in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense? Again, yes. Not just common: ubiquitous!
Third question: is there any historical tradition of banning arms that are in such common use? No.
That’s it. Inquiry over.
And that’s what makes this opinion refreshing. The court even acknowledged that lawmakers might genuinely believe limiting magazines to 10 rounds could reduce harm. But (and this is the important part) the Supreme Court has already rejected interest-balancing under the Second Amendment. Courts aren’t supposed to weigh policy preferences against constitutional text.
So the D.C. court followed the rule.
Because the magazine ban was unconstitutional, the dominoes fell. Benson’s conviction for the “high-capacity” magazine was reversed. And since that magazine classification made his firearm “illegal,” which then triggered charges for unregistered possession, carrying without a license, and unlawful ammo possession, all of those convictions collapsed too. Fruit of the poisonous tree.
The dissent? Interestingly, it came from a Trump-appointed judge. The majority was two judges: one Trump, one Obama. That tells you something. This wasn’t partisan activism. It was doctrinal application.
Now, is this the Supreme Court trigger everyone’s been waiting for? Not quite. Since this isn’t a federal circuit decision, it doesn’t create the clean, undeniable split that forces SCOTUS to step in.
But it absolutely adds pressure.
If the Third Circuit, for example, strikes down New Jersey’s assault weapon ban in Cheeseman v. Platkin, and New Jersey appeals, that’s when the chessboard shifts. A real split on major platform bans? That’s when the justices have fewer excuses to keep punting.
For now, this is a major win in principle and a roadmap in practice. It reinforces that:
- Magazines are arms.
- Common use actually means common use.
- And courts don’t get to invent balancing tests the Supreme Court already rejected.
Is it the knockout blow? No.
Is it a clean, intellectually honest application of Heller and Bruen? Absolutely.
And in today’s legal climate, that alone feels like a small miracle.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
Read the full article here
