[Update 3/13] Benson v District of Columbia, Magazines

[John Kloehr]

A limited ruling, but a good ruling. From (with my bold):

 

https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/Benson v US et al 23-CV-0541 FINAL.pdf

 

"

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. 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. 

 

"

Edited March 13 by John Kloehr

[Blackwater 53393]

SU-FREAKIN’-PERB!!

 

This has the potential to become the touchstone for rulings in multiple cases that are in various courts across the judicial system!!

 

Let this be the snowball that grows as it rolls downhill through the courts, gathering size and speed as it demolishes these unconstitutional infringements as it goes and grows!!

[Blackwater 53393]

The dissenting judge in this decision used every backward, disingenuous lie in arguing for his decision!! I have bought several firearms, “new in the box” that came with thirty round magazines!! That judge cannot be so ignorant of the world around him as to actually believe the garbage that he has produced!!

[Lawdog Dago Dom]

@John Kloehr Since you broke the news here on the TEAM SASS thread, would you mind posting it also in the Saloon?

This news definitely needs more views.

 

[John Kloehr]

14 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

The dissenting judge in this decision used every backward, disingenuous lie in arguing for his decision!! I have bought several firearms, “new in the box” that came with thirty round magazines!! That judge cannot be so ignorant of the world around him as to actually believe the garbage that he has produced!!

Someone needs to take him to a range.

[Blackwater 53393]

1 minute ago, John Kloehr said:

Someone needs to take him to a range.

Ain’t likely that you could drag him to a range with a team of mules!!

[John Kloehr]

If I could, after pellet rifles and .22s, I would first show him how to firmly and solidly grip my AK-V. then show him how easily it bumps if not held securely. And lead him to the take-away that aiming is far more dangerous than spraying, and that it does not take very long to change magazines.

 

Seriously, the Las Vegas shooter from his nest, would have killed many more if he had aimed and capacity limits would not have changed the outcome of that worse possibility..

 

And in further discussion, that dis-arming law-abiding citizens in any environment just increases the death toll.

[Blackwater 53393]

More on this ruling:

 

“CCRKBA HAILS D.C. APPEALS COURT RULING STRIKING DISTRICT MAG BAN

 

Mar 6, 2026

 

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today is celebrating a 2-1 ruling by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals which strikes down the ban on so-called “large-capacity magazines” in the District because it violates the Second Amendment.

The case, known as Benson v. U.S., could still have more hurdles, uch as an appeal by the District, seeking an en banc review. In the meantime, however, CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb is hailing the ruling as a major step forward, simply because of the influence it might have. Such magazine bans exist in some states, and they are all in the legal crosshairs.

“This is a major Second Amendment ruling,” Gottlieb observed. “You could say that it is the ‘second Shot Heard Around the World.’”

The majority opinion was written by Associate Judge Joshua Deahl, a Donald Trump appointee, who stated, “Appellant Tyree Benson argues that ban contravenes the Second Amendment so that his conviction for violating it should be vacated. The United States, which prosecuted Benson in the underlying case and defended the ban’s constitutionality in the initial round of appellate briefing, now concedes that this ban violates the Second Amendment.”

The significance of the federal government’s flip cannot be understated, Gottlieb suggested. While the District continues to defend the ban, the fact that the Trump administration now recognizes the Second Amendment protects magazines amounts to a legal tectonic shift.

“Whether anti-gun lawmakers and liberal judges realize it or not,” Gottlieb said, “Judge Deahl’s opinion means the Second Amendment has teeth. The gun prohibition lobby just got smacked, because this ruling puts one of their major arguments in the corner, where it belongs.”

Judge Deahl was joined in his opinion by Judge Catherine Friend Easterly, a Barack Obama appointee. Writing a dissent was Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby. There has been no announcement from the District about whether it will appeal.”

 

 

*My own addition: It’s extremely important to note here the the US DOJ swapped sides on this matter and openly stated before the court that magazine bans are unconstitutional!!*

Edited March 6 by Blackwater 53393

[Subdeacon Joe]

 

Go to en banc, en banc will uphold law, appeal to to SCOTUS, SCOTUS will sit on it for a while before getting around to denying cert.

 

Yes, I'm rather cynical. 

[John Kloehr]

21 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

... I have bought several firearms, “new in the box” that came with thirty round magazines!!

So have I. Tyree Benson had a 9mm Glock handgun with a 30 round magazine, that is not "new in the box," this handgun does not come with that capacity. The dissenting judge was doing his best to make this the issue without actually saying he was making this the issue. If Benson had a 17 round magazine (likely for a Glock), he would have still tried to find any way to rule in favor of the restriction.

 

This goes to the idea "bad facts make bad rulings." In this case, two other judges made a good ruling based on the actual law and the constitution. If the court does take it up en banc, there is this somewhat "bad fact" to work with, the dissenting judge did everything short of actually saying it.

[John Kloehr]

Keeping in mind the DC government may still seek en banc review, the decision in this case has now been added to the record in two SCOTUS petitions (links below). From the Duncan supplemental brief (my bold):

 

"

In opposing certiorari, California did not deny the cert-worthiness of the question whether states may ban ubiquitous ammunition feeding devices. Nor did it claim any vehicle problems. The state instead made a plea for patience, arguing that “[n]othing material ha[d] changed” since Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island—where three Justices voted to grant certiorari to resolve in an interlocutory posture the same issues that this case presents in a final-judgment posture, ... and urging the Court to wait for a “genuine conflict in the lower courts.”...

 

The wait is over. ... there is now a square split on the ultimate question. On March 5, 2026, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that the District’s ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds violates the Second Amendment. Benson v. United States, 2026 WL 628772 (D.C. Mar. 5, 2026). In doing so, Benson explicitly parted ways with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in this case ...

 

"

 

Duncan v Bonta:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-198/400609/20260311150049523_2026-3-11 Final Duncan supp br re Benson.pdf

 

Gators v Washington State:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-153/400608/20260311145912511_2026-3-11 Final Gators supp br re Benson.pdf

[Eyesa Horg]

Thanks John for all your effort and perseverance following these cases. 👍

[John Kloehr]

4 hours ago, Eyesa Horg said:

Thanks John for all your effort and perseverance following these cases. 👍

It's a hobby and I care. So do at least a handful of members on this forum.

 

And for the case, the district is appealing for an en banc hearing. Should that fail, the next step is to appeal to the Supreme Court. Will be interesting to see if that happens.

 

A request for "Emergency Motion to Suspend Precedential Status of Opinion Pending Petition for Rehearing En Banc" and the plaintiffs reply to this request can be downloaded as PDFs (scroll to bottom of docket) from:

 

https://efile.dcappeals.gov/public/caseView.do?csIID=67629

[John Kloehr]

DCs emergency motion to suspend "precedential status of the opinion" pending appeal denied. Appeal for expedited hearing en banc denied. Expedited consideration denied. Response of parties to motion for en banc hearing within 14 days, do not expect any grant of extension to file.

 

Summary: The appeal by DC will be considered in the normal course of judicial business. It will be considered, but not expedited and also not delayed by the parties. So now wait 2 weeks (April 6) plus however long the DC court takes to consider the motion.

 

Full order:

 

"

 

ORDERED by the merits division* that the District's emergency motion to suspend precedential status of the opinion pending the petition for rehearing en banc is denied and referred to the en bane court as requested by the District. It is

 

FURTHER ORDERED that the District's emergency motion to suspend precedential status of the opinion pending the petition for rehearing en banc is denied by the en banc court. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the District's motion to expedite the consideration of the petition for rehearing en banc is denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that within 14 days from the date of this order, appellant Tyree Benson is directed, and appellee United States is invited, to file a response to the petition for rehearing en banc. Any motion for an extension of time will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances.

PER CURIAM Chief Judge Blackburne-Rigsby would grant intervenor-appellee District of Columbia's motion to expedite the consideration of the petition for rehearing en banc.

 

"

 

The last paragraph is interesting. I think this is the dissenting judge from the 3-judge panel. Blackburne-Rigsby would grant expedited consideration of rehearing en banc, but does not express granting setting aside the opinion until then.