By FCN Staff
In a significant ruling for Second Amendment jurisprudence, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has held that the District’s ban on firearm magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The decision, issued March 5, 2026, in Tyree Benson v. United States, marks one of the most consequential firearm rulings from the District’s highest court in recent years and reflects the growing influence of the U.S. Supreme Court’s modern Second Amendment framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
The Case: Tyree Benson v. United States
The case arose after Tyree Benson was prosecuted under District law for possession of a magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds. District of Columbia law has long prohibited so-called “large-capacity magazines,” treating them as illegal firearm accessories regardless of whether they are attached to a firearm.
Benson challenged the law, arguing that the restriction violated the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms. His appeal ultimately reached the District of Columbia Court of Appeals after proceedings in the District’s Superior Court.
The appellate court agreed.
In its ruling, the court concluded that magazines holding more than ten rounds are commonly possessed for lawful purposes across the United States and therefore fall within the scope of the Second Amendment.
Because of that conclusion, the court held that the District’s ban could not survive constitutional scrutiny under the analytical framework set forth in Bruen.
The Post-Bruen Legal Standard
The decision hinges heavily on the test announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022).
Under Bruen, courts must apply a two-step analysis:
- Determine whether the conduct regulated by the law is protected by the Second Amendment.
- If so, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Unlike earlier legal tests that balanced government interests against individual rights, the Bruen framework rejects interest-balancing and instead requires historical analogues from the founding era or early American history.
In the Benson case, the court found that the District failed to identify historical regulations sufficiently similar to justify banning magazines exceeding ten rounds.
“Common Use” and Constitutional Protection
A central concept in modern Second Amendment cases is whether a weapon or accessory is in “common use” for lawful purposes.
The U.S. Supreme Court emphasized this principle in District of Columbia v. Heller, the landmark 2008 case that struck down Washington’s handgun ban and recognized an individual constitutional right to possess firearms for self-defense.
Relying on this precedent, the court concluded that magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds are widely owned throughout the United States and are standard equipment for many modern firearms.
Because they are commonly possessed, the court reasoned, they fall within the protections recognized in Heller and reinforced in Bruen.
Implications for Washington, D.C.
The ruling directly invalidates the District’s prohibition on magazines holding more than ten rounds, a restriction that had been in place for years as part of the city’s broader firearm regulations.
However, the practical impact will depend on several factors:
- Whether the District government seeks further review.
- Possible appeals to federal courts.
- Legislative responses by the D.C. Council.
Officials from the District have previously defended the magazine ban as a public-safety measure intended to limit the lethality of mass shootings.
Gun-rights advocates, by contrast, argue that such restrictions criminalize ordinary firearm ownership and fail to target violent offenders.
Part of a National Legal Trend
The Benson ruling is part of a broader wave of litigation challenging firearm regulations across the country since the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen.
Courts nationwide are reconsidering longstanding gun laws, including:
- magazine capacity restrictions
- assault-weapon bans
- public-carry licensing regimes
The legal landscape remains unsettled as appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court continue to clarify how the historical-tradition test should be applied.
Why This Case Matters
The Benson decision underscores how dramatically Second Amendment law has shifted in recent years.
Before Bruen, courts often upheld firearm regulations using a balancing test that weighed public safety against constitutional rights.
Today, the analysis is far more rigid: unless governments can point to comparable regulations rooted in American history, modern firearm restrictions may struggle to survive constitutional review.
For Washington, D.C.—a jurisdiction historically known for some of the nation’s strictest gun laws—the ruling represents another chapter in a long legal battle over the scope of the Second Amendment.
For legal observers and policymakers alike, the message is clear: the constitutional debate over firearms is far from settled, and courts are now playing a central role in redefining the limits of government regulation.
Federal City News 