{"id":105306,"date":"2024-10-30T18:34:08","date_gmt":"2024-10-30T23:34:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=105306"},"modified":"2024-10-30T18:34:08","modified_gmt":"2024-10-30T23:34:08","slug":"105306","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=105306","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Federal Appeals Court Upholds DC Magazine Ban<\/a><\/p>\n

Gun owners in the nation\u2019s capital will continue to face ammunition magazine capacity limits, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.<\/p>\n

A divided three-judge panel for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision upholding DC\u2019s ban on the possession and sale of what it called \u201cextra-large capacity magazines\u201d (ELCMs). The panel ruled the city\u2019s ten-round limit for magazines fit within the nation\u2019s historical tradition of regulating \u201cparticularly dangerous weapons\u201d and those \u201ccapable of unprecedented lethality,\u201d even though there weren\u2019t similar bans when the Second Amendment was ratified.<\/p>\n

\u201cBecause ELCMs implicate unprecedented societal concerns and dramatic technological changes, the lack of a \u2018precise match\u2019 does not preclude finding at this preliminary juncture an historical tradition \u2018analogous enough to pass constitutional muster,’\u201d the majority wrote in\u00a0an unsigned opinion<\/a>\u00a0in\u00a0Hanson v. District of Columbia<\/em>. \u201cTherefore, we hold Hanson is not sufficiently likely to succeed on the merits of his claim to warrant the entry of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the magazine cap.\u201d<\/p>\n

The ruling deals a significant blow to gun-rights advocates in their\u00a0<\/span>decades-long quest<\/span><\/a>\u00a0to undo DC\u2019s restrictive gun laws. It comes as appeals courts across the country have\u00a0<\/span>routinely upheld similar bans<\/span><\/a>\u00a0in recent years despite the Supreme Court raising the bar modern gun laws have to clear to pass muster in 2022\u2019s\u00a0New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The District\u2019s magazine ban, which it first adopted in 2008, survived a previous challenge in 2011\u2019s\u00a0Heller II\u00a0<\/em>decision<\/a>. A quartet of gun owners sued the city over its ban once again in 2022 after the Supreme Court issued its decision in\u00a0Bruen<\/i>, arguing that the capital city\u2019s ban ran afoul of the new history and tradition standard set by the High Court.<\/p>\n

In reviewing the gun owners\u2019 arguments, the DC Circuit panel agreed that magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition counted as \u201carms\u201d under the plain text of the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n

\u201cA magazine is necessary to make meaningful an individual\u2019s right to carry a handgun for self-defense,\u201d the majority wrote. \u201cTo hold otherwise would allow the government to sidestep the Second Amendment with a regulation prohibiting possession at the component level, \u2018such as a firing pin.\u201d<\/p>\n

It also agreed ELCMs are \u201ccommonly used for self-defense,\u201d key points of contention many other courts have disputed in upholding similar bans. The plaintiffs argued that the court\u2019s analysis should stop there since the Supreme Court previously suggested that restrictions on arms in common use for self-defense are unconstitutional.<\/p>\n

The majority, however, argued that such restrictions could be justified if the government identified a suitable historical analogue for its modern-day ban.<\/p>\n

The city\u2019s attorneys pointed to several potential analogues, including founding-era regulations on the storage of gunpowder and ammunition, concealed carry restrictions, and laws prohibiting discharging firearms within a city. However, the panel found those examples unpersuasive.<\/p>\n

Instead, the majority pointed to 19th-century restrictions on Bowie knives, as well as prohibition-era regulations on machineguns and sawed-off shotguns, as examples that fit the bill. It conceded those examples didn\u2019t establish a historical tradition of banning magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds or even regulating ammunition capacity at all. Still, it said that was ok because the Supreme Court blessed a more \u201cnuanced approach\u201d to \u201ccases implicating unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes,\u201d and the thrust of the restrictions was similar.<\/p>\n

\u201cAlthough these laws may target different crimes than does the magazine cap, they share the same basic purpose: To inhibit then unprecedentedly lethal criminal activity by restricting or banning weapons that are particularly susceptible to, and were widely used for, multiple homicides and mass injuries,\u201d the panel concluded. \u201cBecause many of the preceding examples are also outright bans on an entire class of weapons, they impose a burden on the right to armed self-defense comparable to (if nor greater than) the burden imposed by the District\u2019s magazine cap.\u201d<\/p>\n

Judge Justin Walker broke with his colleagues and wrote separately that he would have struck down the District\u2019s magazine ban at the first step of the analysis.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn\u00a0District of Columbia v. Heller<\/em>, the Supreme Court held that the government cannot categorically ban an arm in common use for lawful purposes,\u201d Walker, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote. \u201cMagazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition are arms in common use for lawful purposes. Therefore, the government cannot ban them.\u201d<\/p>\n

Judge Patricia Millett, a Barack Obama appointee, and Judge Douglas Ginsburg, a Ronald Reagan appointee, were in the majority.<\/p>\n

Following the ruling, the case will likely return to the District Court to be tried on the merits. In the interim, its outcome could be affected by the fate of a recent\u00a0Fourth Circuit decision<\/a>\u00a0upholding nearby Maryland\u2019s assault weapons ban. The plaintiffs in that case, which deals with similar Second Amendment questions to magazine restrictions, have requested review from a Supreme Court that has already\u00a0expressed some interest<\/a>\u00a0in taking the issue up.<\/p>\n

The High Court could decide whether to take that case by the end of the year.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Federal Appeals Court Upholds DC Magazine Ban Gun owners in the nation\u2019s capital will continue to face ammunition magazine capacity limits, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday. A divided three-judge panel for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision upholding DC\u2019s ban on the possession and sale of what it called … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-105306","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-crap-for-brains","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105306","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=105306"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105306\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":105307,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105306\/revisions\/105307"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=105306"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=105306"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=105306"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}