Supreme Court Examines D.C. Gun Magazine Law and Impact on Rights

2nd Amendment text on old parchment paper.

Gun owners in the nation’s capital are appealing to the Supreme Court to restore their right to own magazines with more than 10 rounds, challenging D.C.’s restrictive firearm laws in a case that could reshape Second Amendment rights across America.

Quick Takes

The Supreme Court is reviewing a challenge to Washington D.C.’s law restricting gun magazines to 10 rounds maximum capacity.
Gun owners with concealed carry permits argue higher-capacity magazines are commonly used for self-defense and protected under the Second Amendment.
A D.C. Circuit panel previously upheld the magazine restriction in a 2-1 decision, citing historical gun regulations from the Prohibition era.
The case could significantly impact similar magazine capacity restrictions in other states.
The legal challenge relies heavily on precedents established in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Constitutional Challenge to D.C.’s Magazine Restriction

Four Washington D.C. firearm owners with concealed carry permits are challenging the district’s Firearms Registration Amendment Act of 2008, which makes possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds a felony punishable by up to three years imprisonment and a $12,500 fine. The petitioners argue that such magazines are in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense, making the restriction unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Their appeal comes after both a federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the magazine capacity limitation.

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 case raises fundamental questions about how courts should interpret Second Amendment rights following the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that gun regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The appeal asks the high court to determine whether the Second Amendment allows governments to ban arms that are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, a question with implications for similar magazine restrictions across multiple states.

The Lower Court Decisions

The D.C. Circuit panel rejected the challenge to Washington’s 10-round magazine cap in a 2-1 decision. Judges Patricia Millett and Douglas Ginsburg formed the majority that denied the request for a preliminary injunction against the restriction. The panel applied a two-part test from the Bruen decision, first determining that high-capacity magazines qualify as “arms” under the Second Amendment, but then finding that Washington’s restriction had sufficient historical analogues in Prohibition-era laws restricting high-capacity weapons.

Judge Justin Walker issued a strong dissent, arguing that magazines with more than 10 rounds are commonly used for lawful purposes and therefore cannot be banned under precedents established in District of Columbia v. Heller. Walker’s dissent cited the 2008 Heller decision, which recognized an individual right to possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes like self-defense within the home. Attorney George Lyon Jr., representing the gun owners, has indicated plans to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the panel majority misinterpreted historical analogues.

Arguments on Both Sides

Washington D.C. defends its magazine restriction as a public safety measure aimed at reducing casualties in mass shooting incidents. The district’s legal team argues that the limitation is reasonable and comparable to historical restrictions on especially dangerous weapons. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, who initially upheld the restriction, compared it to Prohibition-era firearms regulations aimed at reducing violence. The city maintains that the restriction doesn’t substantially burden Second Amendment rights since gun owners can still possess firearms with standard-capacity magazines.

The petitioners counter that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are not unusual or dangerous weapons but rather standard equipment for many common firearms. They point out that such magazines come standard with many popular handguns and rifles, and are owned by millions of law-abiding Americans. The gun owners argue that the Second Amendment protects their right to possess all bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes including standard-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. They contend that historical restrictions on firearms during Prohibition targeted specific criminal activities rather than law-abiding citizens.

Broader Implications for Gun Rights

This case could have far-reaching implications for similar magazine capacity restrictions in other jurisdictions. Currently, several states including California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont have enacted various forms of magazine capacity limitations. The Supreme Court’s decision could establish a clearer standard for evaluating these restrictions nationwide. Second Amendment advocates view this case as an opportunity for the Court to further define the scope of constitutional protection for commonly-owned firearms and their components.

The case also highlights ongoing tensions between public safety concerns and constitutional rights. Supporters of magazine restrictions point to their potential to reduce casualties in mass shooting incidents by forcing shooters to reload more frequently. Opponents argue that such restrictions primarily affect law-abiding gun owners while having minimal impact on criminals. The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling may need to balance these competing interests while remaining faithful to the constitutional text, history, and tradition that guide Second Amendment jurisprudence under the framework established in recent decisions.