Court Upholds DC Gun Ban on Large-Capacity Magazines
WASHINGTON — A federal judge last week upheld a District of Columbia ban on large-capacity magazines in what appears to be a shift away from gun ownership rights.
Washington, D.C., has been aggressive in trying to restrict gun rights but usually lost in court when gun owners challenged the restrictions by invoking Second Amendment rights.
Judge Rudolph Contreras gave a rare victory to the D.C. Council in a ruling that said “unprecedented societal concerns” show a need to limit gun owners’ access to the most dangerous weapons.
The U.S. is setting a record for mass killings so far this year with an average of one per week. They left 88 people dead in 17 shootings in the first 111 days of 2023. They included three children and three adults at a Christian elementary school in Nashville, Tennessee.
Gun chambers that can hold more than 10 bullets are generally considered “large-capacity magazines.” They often are used in mass shootings because they allow shooters to fire many rounds before stopping or pausing to reload.
“The district’s ban seeks to promote public safety by limiting the number of rounds in one magazine that an individual may lawfully carry for self-defense in an attempt to mitigate the carnage of mass shootings in this country,” says the opinion written by Contreras for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The judge’s order responded to a petition from gun owners seeking a preliminary injunction against the ban. He agreed with them that large capacity magazines are “arms” under definitions of the Second Amendment.
He disagreed that ownership of the magazines should be protected as a constitutional right because they are not needed for self-defense.
“Law-abiding citizens on average fire only two bullets in self-defense situations and virtually never more than 10,” the ruling said while citing a recent study on gun use. “Even plaintiffs’ experts seem to believe that [large-capacity magazines] are best suited for military and law enforcement use.”
Contreras appears to lay the groundwork for an appeal with the ruling, which could be interpreted as disclaiming parts of last year’s Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. The Supreme Court said the Second Amendment protects the right to carry guns outside the home.
“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,” Contreras wrote.
Similar reasoning is sweeping through other gun rights cases as the death toll from mass killings continues to rise.
Last week, advocacy groups for gun regulation and against domestic violence filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging the justices to reverse an appellate court ruling they say would make it easier for domestic abusers to get guns.
They were prompted by a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that struck down gun charges against an Arlington, Texas, man accused of beating his girlfriend. A judge’s restraining order prohibited him from having guns.
After the man approached his girlfriend’s home, and in a later incident fired shots into the air, police obtained a warrant and searched the man’s residence. They found a rifle and a pistol, which led to charges against him for alleged gun violations.
The appellate court in New Orleans, Louisiana, said the man’s Second Amendment rights meant he could not be charged with a crime for having the guns.
The advocacy groups said in their amicus — or friend of the court — brief that the 5th Circuit ruling will only lead to more domestic violence.
Esther Sanchez-Gomez, litigation director for the gun control group Giffords Law Center, said in a statement, “The 5th Circuit’s decision in USA v. Rahimi was reckless and endangers many lives, especially those of women and children already suffering domestic violence. We know that firearms in the hands of individuals who have been deemed dangerous by a court leads to gun violence. It is common sense to keep guns out of such hands.”
The District of Columbia case is Hanson v. D.C., D.D.C., No. 1:22-cv-02256, Apr. 20, 2023.
You can reach us at [email protected] and follow us on Facebook and Twitter
We're proud to make our journalism accessible to everyone, but producing high-quality journalism comes at a cost. That's why we need your help. By making a contribution today, you'll be supporting TWN and ensuring that we can keep providing our journalism for free to the public.
Donate now and help us continue to publish TWN’s distinctive journalism. Thank you for your support!
