WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a landmark legal development, the U.S. Department of Justice has formally stated that Washington, D.C.’s ban on large-capacity ammunition feeding devices—commonly defined as magazines holding more than ten rounds—is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
The revelation came through a recent filing in the D.C. Court of Appeals, where the United States moved to vacate a conviction for possession of a large-capacity magazine. The DOJ’s motion argued that the law, D.C. Code § 7-2506.01(b), “cannot survive constitutional scrutiny.”
This news was first highlighted by Kostas Moros, Director of Legal Research and Education for the Second Amendment Foundation, who posted the filing and commentary on X (formerly Twitter). Moros described the decision as “absolutely unprecedented,” noting that no prior administration—Republican or Democrat—has ever acknowledged that a magazine ban violates the Second Amendment.
According to the DOJ’s filing, the Department “will no longer defend D.C. Code § 7-2506.01(b)” and “is not prosecuting violations” of the law. The motion further stated that vacating the conviction of appellant Juan Peterson was necessary “in the interests of justice,” since his conviction was based on a statute that “encroaches upon the interests protected by the Second Amendment.”
Although the District of Columbia Attorney General’s Office still maintains that the statute is constitutional, it did not oppose the DOJ’s request to vacate Peterson’s conviction.
A National Turning Point for Magazine Bans
The DOJ’s decision marks a historic departure from decades of federal legal precedent and could have far-reaching implications for states that maintain similar bans. Jurisdictions such as California, New Jersey, Illinois, and New York all have laws restricting magazine capacities, and those bans are currently being challenged under the Supreme Court’s 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision.
Under Bruen, gun laws must align with the nation’s historical firearm traditions. Federal courts across the country have since grappled with whether limits on magazine capacity have any historical basis—an argument that the DOJ now appears to reject outright.
Legal experts suggest that this move could influence upcoming appellate and Supreme Court decisions, as the federal government’s stance carries significant weight in constitutional interpretation and enforcement.
Second Amendment Perspective
From a Second Amendment standpoint, the DOJ’s acknowledgment represents a major affirmation of what gun owners and rights advocates have argued for years—that magazines holding more than ten rounds are standard equipment for many common firearms and thus protected under the Constitution.
Moros cautioned against political overreaction, noting that while advocates should continue holding the government accountable, this moment reflects substantial progress. “No administration has EVER acknowledged that magazine bans are unconstitutional,” he wrote. “We have it pretty good right now, overall.”
This development suggests a shifting tide in federal firearms policy, potentially setting the stage for broader recognition that laws restricting widely owned firearm components infringe upon the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Possible Next Steps
If the D.C. Court of Appeals grants the DOJ’s motion, the decision could become a reference point for future challenges in other jurisdictions. While not binding outside the District, the DOJ’s position signals that the federal government itself now views blanket magazine bans as constitutionally indefensible.
For gun owners and constitutional scholars alike, this moment may mark the beginning of a broader rollback of restrictions enacted during the last several decades of gun control legislation.
