BREAKING - in Benson v. US, the DC Court of Appeals - not to be confused with the federal DC Circuit - has ruled that DC's ban on magazines over ten rounds is unconstitutional.
This is the highest court in DC, akin to its Supreme Court.
@MorosKostas
DC court of appeals (not to be confused with DC circuit) says mag ban violates the 2A! https://t.co/dPOkRX0buc
This is a criminal case in which the United States reversed its position and conceded that the ban violates the Second Amendment. But the DC government continued to defend the constitutionality of the ban.
In the summary of the ruling, the majority appears to adopt what SAF and many others have long argued in accordance with Heller: commonality alone grants Second Amendment protection.
"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."
The Court says it will answer three questions (and spoiler, we like their answers):
(1) whether 11+ magazines are arms protected by the Second Amendment;
(2) the extent to which 11+ magazines are in “common use” for lawful purposes, like self-defense; and
(3) whether there is any history and tradition of banning similar arms.
I disagree with the thrust of this footnote because it ignores the extensive historical evidence confirming the Second Amendment was always intended to protect an individual right.
Amazing how hard it has been to get courts to accept this very basic premise, even though its exactly what Heller says.
ANYTHING that is a bearable arm is covered, and restrictions must be justified by history. Some gun laws may be quite easy to justify with history because they have tons of historical analogues similar to them, like disarming violent criminals. But you don't get to skip the historical analysis by claiming an arm is not an arm. Yet that is exactly what many courts have done.
This is very cathartic to read. It's so obviously correct, so faithful to Heller and Bruen, and yet a series of antigun circuits have tied themselves in knots to say the opposite due to their opposition to the Second Amendment.
The court says magazines are arms because they facilitate armed self-defense, and can be used for other lawful purposes too, like target practice.
The Court dismisses the contention that magazines by themselves are not arms, because any part of a gun (or even a whole gun, without ammo) is harmless by itself.
The Court mocks the Ninth Circuit's Duncan ruling, approvingly citing the VanDyke and Bumatay dissents.
The Court points out that by DC's logic (that magazines over ten rounds are not necessary to fire a gun), you could basically ban all semiauto guns, and even modern cartridges, since muskets could still work!
This reminds me of the Boland/Renna district court evidentiary hearing, where Judge Carney got California to admit that their position was they could ban all semiauto handguns (because revolvers were still available).
The Court really does not like Duncan.
With good reason!
The Court says that any components integral to a gun's operation are arms.
Alas, we will have to scuttle plans for one of our future planned cases.
"there is no historical precedent for a ban on ubiquitous arms."
Precisely. Maybe some future case will have to decide what happens when the government preemptively bans a type of arm before it can become popular. That's certainly a blindspot in the common use "test."
But whatever the circularity problem, what's clear is that things like magazines and semiauto rifles are already extremely popular and can't be banned.
The Court confirms that when arms are ubiquitous, the 2A analysis is over. They are protected, period.
Yet another point that Heller was very clear on, yet antigun courts pretended to not understand.
In magazine cases, a common bad faith attack by state governments and antigun groups has been their denial that magazines over ten rounds are common.
This defies common sense; such magazines come standard with most handguns sold in the majority of the states, so on just that basis alone, of course they are common. And that doesn't count extra magazines people buy, magazines that come with semiauto rifles, etc.
The Court here cuts through that bad faith quickly. Magazines over ten rounds are common.
In a footnote, the majority points out that the dissent's whining about the English study or the NSSF data is unpersuasive because the dissent (and DC) offer nothing to the contrary.
DC, like antigun states, argued that "dangerous and unusual" actually means "unusually dangerous."
The Court is having none of that, saying that the Supreme Court "tends not to speak in code."
Great point that if the test were "unusually dangerous," then handgun bans would stand, given handguns are more dangerous than most other weapons.
Not loving the reference to "assault weapons," but that this Court is not super pro-gun (an Obama judge joined the majority) yet still reached the right result is encouraging.
I am really here for all the bashing of Duncan.
In this excerpt, the Court again mocks the Ninth Circuit for saying ownership statistics are too "simplistic."
The Ninth Circuit said that, of course, because if they said otherwise they'd have to strike down CA's ban.
The Court concedes that perhaps in some other case it will be hard to draw the exact line of what is common enough.
But this isn't that case. There are hundreds of million of magazines over ten rounds in use in the country.
This opinion is beating the Duncan majority into the ground, wow.
Correct, and this is a feature, not a bug.
What antigun courts refuse to accept is that the Second Amendment is a broad right that "shall not be infringed," and the People, through their choices, determine which arms are protected.
This is only troubling if you start from the premise that the Second Amendment is a bad thing. (And antigun courts, like the Ninth Circuit, absolutely do)
"one perfectly coherent view is that law-abiding citizens everywhere should have access to the same arms that are legal, widely owned, and generally available throughout the rest of the country."
Yes!
Aside from some minor tidbits, this opinion is the model to follow in hardware ban cases.
The Court also dismisses the argument that more than ten rounds are rarely actually needed in self-defense, because the magazines are still owned for that purpose. Plus, they are used for other lawful purposes, like target practice.
The Court says that because magazines are common, the issue is settled by Heller.
But to rebut the dissent's whining, it does a historical analysis anyway.
The Court quickly counters the specific analogues DC raised.
They are all silly, and deserve to be quickly dismissed. Unfortunately, other courts have taken them serious and used them to uphold magazine bans.
The Supreme Court needs to use this decision as a model for a per curiam in Duncan.
The Court says that DC's more general proposed analogue, a supposed "tradition of targeting dangerous and unusual weapons and accessories when they have contributed to violence and other crime", is just interest balancing.
Bashes Duncan some more, because Duncan is very stupid and the Ninth Circuit should be humiliated for ever issuing it.
That this majority (including an Obama-appointed judge) doesn't seem to particularly care for the Second Amendment is all the more reason it deserves so much praise in reaching the correct result anyway.
It's sad that it is so rare these days in the Second Amendment field for judges to set their politics aside and follow Supreme Court precedent, but it is.
We appreciate the judges doing their duty, even with the reservations they may have about that.
The majority concludes the main part of its analysis.
As a sort of "epilogue", the Court also addresses DC's backup argument that even if bans on magazines over ten rounds are unconstitutional, Benson had a 30 round magazine, and a ban on that is fine. Basically, there is no valid facial challenge unless no magazine capacity limit (even a thousand rounds) is constitutional.
BREAKING - in Benson v. US, the DC Court of Appeals - not to be confused with the federal DC Circuit - has ruled that DC's ban on magazines over ten rounds is unconstitutional.
This is the highest court in DC, akin to its Supreme Court.This is a criminal case in which the United States reversed its position and conceded that the ban violates the Second Amendment. But the DC government continued to defend the constitutionality of the ban.In the summary of the ruling, the majority appears to adopt what SAF and many others have long argued in accordance with Heller: commonality alone grants Second Amendment protection.
"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."The Court says it will answer three questions (and spoiler, we like their answers):
(1) whether 11+ magazines are arms protected by the Second Amendment;
(2) the extent to which 11+ magazines are in “common use” for lawful purposes, like self-defense; and
(3) whether there is any history and tradition of banning similar arms.I disagree with the thrust of this footnote because it ignores the extensive historical evidence confirming the Second Amendment was always intended to protect an individual right.Amazing how hard it has been to get courts to accept this very basic premise, even though its exactly what Heller says.
ANYTHING that is a bearable arm is covered, and restrictions must be justified by history. Some gun laws may be quite easy to justify with history because they have tons of historical analogues similar to them, like disarming violent criminals. But you don't get to skip the historical analysis by claiming an arm is not an arm. Yet that is exactly what many courts have done.This is very cathartic to read. It's so obviously correct, so faithful to Heller and Bruen, and yet a series of antigun circuits have tied themselves in knots to say the opposite due to their opposition to the Second Amendment.The court says magazines are arms because they facilitate armed self-defense, and can be used for other lawful purposes too, like target practice.The Court dismisses the contention that magazines by themselves are not arms, because any part of a gun (or even a whole gun, without ammo) is harmless by itself.
The Court mocks the Ninth Circuit's Duncan ruling, approvingly citing the VanDyke and Bumatay dissents.The Court points out that by DC's logic (that magazines over ten rounds are not necessary to fire a gun), you could basically ban all semiauto guns, and even modern cartridges, since muskets could still work!
This reminds me of the Boland/Renna district court evidentiary hearing, where Judge Carney got California to admit that their position was they could ban all semiauto handguns (because revolvers were still available).The Court really does not like Duncan.
With good reason!The Court says that any components integral to a gun's operation are arms.Alas, we will have to scuttle plans for one of our future planned cases."there is no historical precedent for a ban on ubiquitous arms."
Precisely. Maybe some future case will have to decide what happens when the government preemptively bans a type of arm before it can become popular. That's certainly a blindspot in the common use "test."
But whatever the circularity problem, what's clear is that things like magazines and semiauto rifles are already extremely popular and can't be banned.The Court confirms that when arms are ubiquitous, the 2A analysis is over. They are protected, period.
Yet another point that Heller was very clear on, yet antigun courts pretended to not understand.In magazine cases, a common bad faith attack by state governments and antigun groups has been their denial that magazines over ten rounds are common.
This defies common sense; such magazines come standard with most handguns sold in the majority of the states, so on just that basis alone, of course they are common. And that doesn't count extra magazines people buy, magazines that come with semiauto rifles, etc.
The Court here cuts through that bad faith quickly. Magazines over ten rounds are common.In a footnote, the majority points out that the dissent's whining about the English study or the NSSF data is unpersuasive because the dissent (and DC) offer nothing to the contrary.DC, like antigun states, argued that "dangerous and unusual" actually means "unusually dangerous."
The Court is having none of that, saying that the Supreme Court "tends not to speak in code."Great point that if the test were "unusually dangerous," then handgun bans would stand, given handguns are more dangerous than most other weapons.
Not loving the reference to "assault weapons," but that this Court is not super pro-gun (an Obama judge joined the majority) yet still reached the right result is encouraging.I am really here for all the bashing of Duncan.
In this excerpt, the Court again mocks the Ninth Circuit for saying ownership statistics are too "simplistic."
The Ninth Circuit said that, of course, because if they said otherwise they'd have to strike down CA's ban.The Court concedes that perhaps in some other case it will be hard to draw the exact line of what is common enough.
But this isn't that case. There are hundreds of million of magazines over ten rounds in use in the country.This opinion is beating the Duncan majority into the ground, wow.Correct, and this is a feature, not a bug.
What antigun courts refuse to accept is that the Second Amendment is a broad right that "shall not be infringed," and the People, through their choices, determine which arms are protected.
This is only troubling if you start from the premise that the Second Amendment is a bad thing. (And antigun courts, like the Ninth Circuit, absolutely do)"one perfectly coherent view is that law-abiding citizens everywhere should have access to the same arms that are legal, widely owned, and generally available throughout the rest of the country."
Yes!
Aside from some minor tidbits, this opinion is the model to follow in hardware ban cases.The Court also dismisses the argument that more than ten rounds are rarely actually needed in self-defense, because the magazines are still owned for that purpose. Plus, they are used for other lawful purposes, like target practice.The Court says that because magazines are common, the issue is settled by Heller.
But to rebut the dissent's whining, it does a historical analysis anyway.The Court quickly counters the specific analogues DC raised.
They are all silly, and deserve to be quickly dismissed. Unfortunately, other courts have taken them serious and used them to uphold magazine bans.
The Supreme Court needs to use this decision as a model for a per curiam in Duncan.The Court says that DC's more general proposed analogue, a supposed "tradition of targeting dangerous and unusual weapons and accessories when they have contributed to violence and other crime", is just interest balancing.
Bashes Duncan some more, because Duncan is very stupid and the Ninth Circuit should be humiliated for ever issuing it.That this majority (including an Obama-appointed judge) doesn't seem to particularly care for the Second Amendment is all the more reason it deserves so much praise in reaching the correct result anyway.
It's sad that it is so rare these days in the Second Amendment field for judges to set their politics aside and follow Supreme Court precedent, but it is.
We appreciate the judges doing their duty, even with the reservations they may have about that.The majority concludes the main part of its analysis.As a sort of "epilogue", the Court also addresses DC's backup argument that even if bans on magazines over ten rounds are unconstitutional, Benson had a 30 round magazine, and a ban on that is fine. Basically, there is no valid facial challenge unless no magazine capacity limit (even a thousand rounds) is constitutional.
yes
BREAKING - in Benson v. US, the DC Court of Appeals - not to be confused with the federal DC Circuit - has ruled that DC's ban on magazines over ten rounds is unconstitutional.
This is the highest court in DC, akin to its Supreme Court. ... This is a criminal case in which the United States reversed its position and conceded that the ban violates the Second Amendment. But the DC government continued to defend the constitutionality of the ban. ... In the summary of the ruling, the majority appears to adopt what SAF and many others have long argued in accordance with Heller: commonality alone grants Second Amendment protection.
"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." ... The Court says it will answer three questions (and spoiler, we like their answers):
(1) whether 11+ magazines are arms protected by the Second Amendment;
(2) the extent to which 11+ magazines are in “common use” for lawful purposes, like self-defense; and
(3) whether there is any history and tradition of banning similar arms. ... I disagree with the thrust of this footnote because it ignores the extensive historical evidence confirming the Second Amendment was always intended to protect an individual right. ... Amazing how hard it has been to get courts to accept this very basic premise, even though its exactly what Heller says.
ANYTHING that is a bearable arm is covered, and restrictions must be justified by history. Some gun laws may be quite easy to justify with history because they have tons of historical analogues similar to them, like disarming violent criminals. But you don't get to skip the historical analysis by claiming an arm is not an arm. Yet that is exactly what many courts have done. ... This is very cathartic to read. It's so obviously correct, so faithful to Heller and Bruen, and yet a series of antigun circuits have tied themselves in knots to say the opposite due to their opposition to the Second Amendment. ... The court says magazines are arms because they facilitate armed self-defense, and can be used for other lawful purposes too, like target practice. ... The Court dismisses the contention that magazines by themselves are not arms, because any part of a gun (or even a whole gun, without ammo) is harmless by itself.
The Court mocks the Ninth Circuit's Duncan ruling, approvingly citing the VanDyke and Bumatay dissents. ... The Court points out that by DC's logic (that magazines over ten rounds are not necessary to fire a gun), you could basically ban all semiauto guns, and even modern cartridges, since muskets could still work!
This reminds me of the Boland/Renna district court evidentiary hearing, where Judge Carney got California to admit that their position was they could ban all semiauto handguns (because revolvers were still available). ... The Court really does not like Duncan.
With good reason! ... The Court says that any components integral to a gun's operation are arms. ... Alas, we will have to scuttle plans for one of our future planned cases. ... "there is no historical precedent for a ban on ubiquitous arms."
Precisely. Maybe some future case will have to decide what happens when the government preemptively bans a type of arm before it can become popular. That's certainly a blindspot in the common use "test."
But whatever the circularity problem, what's clear is that things like magazines and semiauto rifles are already extremely popular and can't be banned. ... The Court confirms that when arms are ubiquitous, the 2A analysis is over. They are protected, period.
Yet another point that Heller was very clear on, yet antigun courts pretended to not understand. ... In magazine cases, a common bad faith attack by state governments and antigun groups has been their denial that magazines over ten rounds are common.
This defies common sense; such magazines come standard with most handguns sold in the majority of the states, so on just that basis alone, of course they are common. And that doesn't count extra magazines people buy, magazines that come with semiauto rifles, etc.
The Court here cuts through that bad faith quickly. Magazines over ten rounds are common. ... In a footnote, the majority points out that the dissent's whining about the English study or the NSSF data is unpersuasive because the dissent (and DC) offer nothing to the contrary. ... DC, like antigun states, argued that "dangerous and unusual" actually means "unusually dangerous."
The Court is having none of that, saying that the Supreme Court "tends not to speak in code." ... Great point that if the test were "unusually dangerous," then handgun bans would stand, given handguns are more dangerous than most other weapons.
Not loving the reference to "assault weapons," but that this Court is not super pro-gun (an Obama judge joined the majority) yet still reached the right result is encouraging. ... I am really here for all the bashing of Duncan.
In this excerpt, the Court again mocks the Ninth Circuit for saying ownership statistics are too "simplistic."
The Ninth Circuit said that, of course, because if they said otherwise they'd have to strike down CA's ban. ... The Court concedes that perhaps in some other case it will be hard to draw the exact line of what is common enough.
But this isn't that case. There are hundreds of million of magazines over ten rounds in use in the country. ... This opinion is beating the Duncan majority into the ground, wow. ... Correct, and this is a feature, not a bug.
What antigun courts refuse to accept is that the Second Amendment is a broad right that "shall not be infringed," and the People, through their choices, determine which arms are protected.
This is only troubling if you start from the premise that the Second Amendment is a bad thing. (And antigun courts, like the Ninth Circuit, absolutely do) ... "one perfectly coherent view is that law-abiding citizens everywhere should have access to the same arms that are legal, widely owned, and generally available throughout the rest of the country."
Yes!
Aside from some minor tidbits, this opinion is the model to follow in hardware ban cases. ... The Court also dismisses the argument that more than ten rounds are rarely actually needed in self-defense, because the magazines are still owned for that purpose. Plus, they are used for other lawful purposes, like target practice. ... The Court says that because magazines are common, the issue is settled by Heller.
But to rebut the dissent's whining, it does a historical analysis anyway. ... The Court quickly counters the specific analogues DC raised.
They are all silly, and deserve to be quickly dismissed. Unfortunately, other courts have taken them serious and used them to uphold magazine bans.
The Supreme Court needs to use this decision as a model for a per curiam in Duncan. ... The Court says that DC's more general proposed analogue, a supposed "tradition of targeting dangerous and unusual weapons and accessories when they have contributed to violence and other crime", is just interest balancing.
Bashes Duncan some more, because Duncan is very stupid and the Ninth Circuit should be humiliated for ever issuing it. ... That this majority (including an Obama-appointed judge) doesn't seem to particularly care for the Second Amendment is all the more reason it deserves so much praise in reaching the correct result anyway.
It's sad that it is so rare these days in the Second Amendment field for judges to set their politics aside and follow Supreme Court precedent, but it is.
We appreciate the judges doing their duty, even with the reservations they may have about that. ... The majority concludes the main part of its analysis. ... As a sort of "epilogue", the Court also addresses DC's backup argument that even if bans on magazines over ten rounds are unconstitutional, Benson had a 30 round magazine, and a ban on that is fine. Basically, there is no valid facial challenge unless no magazine capacity limit (even a thousand rounds) is constitutional.
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
Update
