 |
| Terrance Barksdale/PEXELS |
‘Because these magazines are arms in common and ubiquitous use by law abiding citizens across this country, we agree … that the District’s outright ban on them violates the Second Amendment.’
In a big win for the Constitution, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that Washington, D.C.’s gun magazine restriction is unconstitutional.
In a 2-1 ruling, the three-judge panel found that the federal district’s ban on firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds violates the Second Amendment. Judges Joshua Deahl (Trump appointee) and Catharine Easterly (Obama appointee) comprised the majority, while Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby (Bush 43 appointee) dissented.
“Magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition are ubiquitous in our country, numbering in the hundreds of millions, accounting for about half of the magazines in the hands of our citizenry, and they come standard with the most popular firearms sold in America today,” Deahl wrote for the majority. “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.”
The case was brought by plaintiff Tyree Benson, who, as described by the court, was charged with several gun-related offenses after law enforcement discovered that he was in possession of “an unregistered semiautomatic firearm equipped with a 30-round magazine.” Among the four charges levied against him were those for unlawful “possession of a ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device'” and “possession of an unregistered firearm.”
Benson filed two pretrial motions in response. One challenged the police officers’ search of him as a Fourth Amendment violation, while the other aimed to dismiss the charges based on claims that D.C.’s firearm restrictions — namely its “’large capacity’ magazine ban and … registration and licensure schemes” — violated his Second Amendment rights.
The district court denied both motions, and Benson was ultimately convicted. As a result, he “received suspended sentences and one year of probation, and was barred from ever possessing a firearm in the future,” according to the D.C. Circuit. --->READ MORE HERE
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals on Thursday ruled that the city's ban on firearm magazines holding more than 10 rounds is unconstitutional, wiping out at least one conviction tied to a 2023 arrest and shaking a core piece of D.C.'s gun-control code. The ruling all but guarantees another round of legal maneuvering and forces prosecutors to rethink how they charge certain gun cases.
According to DC News Now, the appellate panel reversed Tyree Benson's conviction for violating the magazine-capacity ban and ordered that counts based solely on that statute be vacated. Benson had been convicted after a 2023 bench trial where police recovered a handgun and a magazine that held more than 10 rounds, and the court's decision removes the specific criminal penalty attached to that provision. The opinion restores parts of Benson's appeal and instructs the lower court to adjust charges that relied on the magazine law.
Court filings show the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia had already moved to vacate Benson's magazine conviction on constitutional grounds. The unopposed motion, filed by the U.S. Attorney's Office, states that prosecutors no longer view D.C. Code § 7-2506.01 as constitutionally defensible and asks the court to remand so the government can seek dismissal of that count. The filing casts vacatur as a basic fairness issue when a conviction rests on a law the government now says cannot stand, and it is signed and certified by the U.S. Attorney's Office. Court documents show the government's position.
What the court said
In its opinion, the court described magazines holding more than 10 rounds as "ubiquitous" and estimated that they make up a substantial share of magazines owned by civilians, reasoning that widely used accessories are entitled to Second Amendment protection, DC News Now reports. That analysis tracks the questions lower and appellate courts have been wrestling with since the Supreme Court's recent Second Amendment decisions. The panel stressed that categorical bans on equipment that is commonly owned face heightened constitutional scrutiny under those precedents. --->READ MORE HERE
If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK here, GETTR here, and TWITTER here.
No comments:
Post a Comment