Supreme Court Weighs in on Controversial D.C. Gun Magazine Regulations

Supreme Court building with steps and columns.

Gun owners are challenging D.C.’s magazine capacity ban at the Supreme Court, arguing their Second Amendment rights are violated when restricting standard magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Quick Takes

D.C. gun owners are petitioning the Supreme Court to overturn the city’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds, facing felony charges and up to three years in prison for violations.
The D.C. Circuit Court upheld the ban citing public safety concerns and drawing parallels to Prohibition-era gun restrictions.
Circuit Judge Justin Walker’s dissent argues magazines with more than 10 rounds are commonly owned for lawful purposes and should be constitutionally protected.
The case could establish a significant precedent for magazine capacity restrictions across the country, with similar bans under review in multiple states.
Petitioners claim the ban fails the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen test requiring gun laws to have historical analogues from the founding era.

Constitutional Challenge Heads to the Supreme Court

Four Washington D.C. firearm owners with concealed carry permits have petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the district’s prohibition on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The Firearms Registration Amendment Act of 2008 makes possession of such magazines a felony offense, punishable by up to three years imprisonment and a $12,500 fine. The petitioners argue the restriction violates their Second Amendment rights by limiting self-defense options, especially since magazines holding more than 10 rounds are standard equipment for many commonly owned firearms across the United States.

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 traces back through the federal court system, where both a district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the magazine capacity restriction. The D.C. Circuit applied the Supreme Court’s new test from the 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires gun laws to have historical analogues from the founding era to be constitutional.

Circuit Court Split Decision

The D.C. Circuit panel rejected the gun owners’ challenge to Washington’s 10-round magazine cap in a 2-1 decision. Judges Patricia Millett and Douglas Ginsburg formed the majority, finding the district’s safety rationale for the magazine restriction constitutionally acceptable. The majority acknowledged that magazines are protected “arms” under the Second Amendment but determined that historical precedent allowed for the regulation of high-capacity weapons, citing Prohibition-era restrictions intended to curb violent crime as a suitable historical analogue.

Circuit Judge Justin Walker issued a strong dissent, arguing that the majority misapplied the Bruen test and ignored the fundamental principle established in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision. “Magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition are arms in common use for lawful purposes. Therefore, the government cannot ban them,” Walker wrote in his dissent. The dissent emphasized that millions of Americans own such magazines for self-defense, making them protected under the Second Amendment’s text and precedent.

Battle Over Historical Precedent

Central to this case is the interpretation of historical precedent for restricting magazine capacity. Washington D.C. officials argue that Prohibition-era laws restricting “high-capacity weapons” provide sufficient historical basis for modern magazine restrictions. The city’s primary rationale for the ban is mitigating mass shooting casualties, with Judge Rudolph Contreras writing, “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.”

The petitioners and their attorney, George Lyon Jr., counter that the panel misinterpreted historical evidence. They argue that modern magazine restrictions have no founding-era equivalent, as magazines with more than 10 rounds didn’t exist then, making the Prohibition-era regulations too distant from the founding period to satisfy Bruen’s historical analogue requirement. The petitioners also note that modern handgun magazines typically hold 15-17 rounds, making them common arms in today’s usage.

National Implications

The Supreme Court’s decision could have far-reaching effects on similar magazine capacity restrictions across the country. Several justices have expressed skepticism about whether such magazines fall outside state regulatory authority. The Washington case has similarly divided along constitutional interpretation lines, with gun rights groups including the NRA supporting challenges based on Heller precedent.

Second Amendment advocates view this case as an opportunity for the Supreme Court to provide clearer guidance following its Bruen decision. “It’s time for the Supreme Court to take its next landmark Second Amendment case,” said Tyler Yzaguirre of the Second Amendment Institute, which is involved in the case. The Court’s decision to hear or reject this appeal could signal its willingness to further define the boundaries of permissible gun regulation in America, especially regarding components and accessories commonly used with constitutionally protected firearms.