Gun Owners Challenge DC Magazine Restrictions in Supreme Court

Gun owners in the District of Columbia are petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate the city’s restriction on magazines with a capacity exceeding 10 rounds of ammunition.

The appeal in Hanson v. District of Columbia was officially filed by the court on February 28. The District of Columbia, as the respondent, has been ordered to submit a response by March 31.

This legislation was established following the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which overturned the city’s broad limitations on firearm ownership. The Heller ruling affirmed that individuals have the right to possess firearms for legal reasons, including self-defense in their homes.

The law categorizes possession of magazines that can hold over 10 rounds as a felony, which carries a potential penalty of three years imprisonment and a fine of $12,500. District officials argue that this law is essential for public safety.

Leading the petition, Andrew Hanson, along with co-petitioners Tyler Yzaguirre, Nathan Chaney, and Eric Klun—who hold concealed carry pistol licenses in the District—have asserted that they own magazines that hold more than 10 rounds outside of D.C. and would use them lawfully within the district if the 10-round cap were lifted.

Related Stories

Shortly after Bruen was decided, the petitioners filed a lawsuit against the District of Columbia, seeking a federal court’s determination that the magazine limitation conflicted with the Second and Fifth Amendments.

In April 2023, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled against Hanson’s request to halt the law on constitutional grounds, stating that the local statute complied with the U.S. Constitution.

The judge argued that the District’s ammunition restriction, aimed at enhancing public safety, was warranted. This ban was described as “an attempt to mitigate the carnage of mass shootings in this country.”

“Just as states and the District enacted sweeping laws restricting possession of high-capacity weapons during the Prohibition era, the District can do so now,” Contreras stated.

According to the court, “For 15 years, District law enforcement has functioned and been equipped with the magazine cap in effect,” and issuing an “erroneously issued” preliminary injunction could severely hinder the District’s capacity to enforce its magazine restrictions in the long run and enable the district to be flooded with large-capacity magazines throughout the injunction period.

Circuit Judge Justin Walker dissented from the majority opinion.

In his dissent, Walker pointed out that in Heller, the Supreme Court concluded that “the government cannot categorically ban an arm in common use for lawful purposes.”

“Magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds qualify as arms commonly used for lawful reasons. As such, the government cannot impose a ban on them,” Walker opined.

The Supreme Court should consider this case as the D.C. Circuit’s ruling contradicts the principles established in Heller, which “protects the ownership and use of arms that are ‘in common use at the time,’” as detailed in the petition.

While the panel acknowledged that magazines capable of holding 10 or more rounds are indeed “in common use,” it classified them as “particularly dangerous” and likened them to fully automatic weapons.

The petitioners requested the Supreme Court to evaluate whether the Second Amendment “permits a categorical ban on arms that are indisputably common throughout the United States and predominantly used for lawful purposes (generally) and specifically for self-defense.”

Petitioner Yzaguirre, who leads the Second Amendment Institute, expressed optimism regarding the petition’s chances of success.

“It’s time for the Supreme Court to take its next landmark case concerning the Second Amendment,” he remarked to The Epoch Times.

“The era of oppressive elites restricting ‘We the People’ from exercising our God-given rights to self-defense must come to an end,” Yzaguirre asserted.

The Epoch Times reached out for comments from District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb, but no response was received by the time of publication.