Second Amendment · D.C. Courts · Gun Law

Benson v. United States:
The Case That Could Change America’s Gun Laws

A 2022 stop-and-frisk in Washington, D.C. became a landmark constitutional case. On March 5, 2026, the D.C. Court of Appeals struck down the District’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds — and the legal battle has only just begun.

Case No. 23-CF-0514  ·  D.C. Court of Appeals  ·  Decision: March 5, 2026 — 2 to 1  ·  🔴 EN BANC PETITION PENDING

What started as a street stop in the nation’s capital has evolved into one of the most consequential Second Amendment cases in recent memory. On the evening in 2022 when D.C. Metropolitan Police stopped Tyree Benson and found him carrying an unregistered semiautomatic pistol loaded with a 31-round magazine, neither the officers nor Benson could have anticipated that the encounter would eventually involve the U.S. Department of Justice switching sides mid-appeal, fifteen states filing briefs, and a court ruling with implications for gun laws across the entire country.

On March 5, 2026, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued a 2–1 ruling: Washington D.C.’s ban on firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. All four of Benson’s convictions were reversed and vacated. The District immediately moved to fight back, but as of this writing, the ruling stands as binding legal precedent — and a petition for the full court to reconsider the decision is pending.

The Arrest: How It All Began

In 2022, Tyree Benson was subjected to a stop-and-frisk by officers of the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, D.C. Benson alleged from the outset that the stop was unconstitutional — a Fourth Amendment violation. But when police searched him, they found a 9mm semiautomatic handgun loaded with a magazine containing 31 rounds of ammunition. The firearm was unregistered. Benson had no license to carry it outside the home. And under D.C. Code § 7-2506.01(b), possession of any magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds — what the statute calls a “large capacity ammunition feeding device” — is a criminal offense.

Benson was indicted on four counts: (1) possession of a large-capacity ammunition feeding device; (2) possession of an unregistered firearm; (3) carrying a pistol without a license; and (4) unlawful possession of ammunition. He proceeded to a bench trial on stipulated facts. The trial court rejected his constitutional challenges, found him guilty on all four counts, sentenced him to suspended prison time and one year of probation, and imposed a lifetime ban on firearm possession.

Critically, the majority later noted that the government never alleged Benson was a felon or otherwise independently disqualified from firearm ownership. The only basis for his convictions was the act of possessing the magazine itself.

The Road to Appeal: A Three-Year Journey

Benson filed his Notice of Appeal on June 19, 2023. What followed was a years-long proceeding shaped dramatically by events at the U.S. Supreme Court and a dramatic reversal by the federal government.

The DOJ’s Stunning Reversal

One of the most remarkable features of this case is the complete reversal by the federal government. The DOJ originally prosecuted Tyree Benson. It then defended the magazine ban in early briefing. But by oral argument in December 2024, under a new administration, the DOJ had abandoned that position entirely — joining Benson’s side and arguing that D.C.’s ban violates the Second Amendment.

“The United States, which prosecuted Benson in the underlying case and defended the ban’s constitutionality in the initial round of appellate briefing, now concedes that this ban violates the Second Amendment. The District of Columbia, which is also a party to this appeal, continues to defend the constitutionality of its ban.” — Judge Joshua Deahl, Majority Opinion, March 5, 2026

This placed Washington D.C. in the unusual position of defending its own gun law against both the defendant it prosecuted and the federal government that brought the charges. As DC News Now reported in its video coverage of the ruling, the decision was seen locally as both a constitutional development and a product of shifting federal enforcement priorities under the Trump administration’s approach to D.C. gun law.

The March 5, 2026 Decision: Breaking It Down

The majority opinion, authored by Judge Joshua Deahl (a Trump appointee) and joined by Judge Catharine F. Easterly (an Obama appointee), reversed all four of Benson’s convictions. Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby (a George W. Bush appointee) dissented — a notable reversal of the typical partisan alignment, with two judges from opposing administrations uniting to invalidate the law.

Step One: Are Magazines “Arms”?

The majority began with the threshold question under District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): is the item regulated an “arm” protected by the Second Amendment? The court held that detachable magazines are indeed arms — they are integral components without which a firearm cannot function as designed. The court moved quickly to the more contested question.

Step Two: Are 11+ Round Magazines in “Common Use”?

The critical question under the Heller/Bruen framework is whether the regulated arm is in “common use” by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. If so, the government cannot ban it outright. The majority’s answer was unambiguous:

The court cited extensive evidence that hundreds of millions of such magazines are in civilian hands, representing roughly 46–50% of all magazines in existence. Under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022)’s “text, history, and tradition” test, an arm this commonplace cannot be subject to an outright ban.

The “Dangerous and Unusual” Exception — Rejected

D.C. argued that even commonly owned arms may be banned if they are “dangerous and unusual.” The majority dismantled this argument: something cannot be simultaneously in common use by tens of millions of citizens and “unusual.” The two concepts are mutually exclusive. The majority also rejected D.C.’s claim that lawmakers may decide an arm is “unnecessary” for self-defense and therefore ban it — under Bruen, that is not the government’s call to make.

All Four Convictions Reversed

Because the magazine ban was unconstitutional, the majority held, all four of Benson’s convictions fell. Under D.C. law, Benson could not have registered his firearm because it was equipped with a banned magazine. He could not have obtained a carry license for it, and could not have lawfully possessed ammunition for it. Since the predicate offense was constitutionally protected, every derivative charge collapsed with it.

“Because Benson could not have registered, procured a license to carry, or lawfully possessed ammunition for his firearm given that it was equipped with a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds, we likewise reverse his convictions for possession of an unregistered firearm, carrying a pistol without a license, and unlawful possession of ammunition.” — Judge Deahl, Majority Opinion

Chief Judge Blackburne-Rigsby’s Dissent

Chief Judge Blackburne-Rigsby dissented forcefully. Her central point: this case involved a 30-round pistol magazine specifically, which she argued is not in common use for self-defense and is disproportionately associated with mass casualty events. She also argued the majority’s ruling contradicts every other state and federal court to have considered magazine bans post-Bruen, including the First, Second, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits — all of which have upheld similar restrictions.

National Implications: A Circuit Split Is Born

Before March 5, 2026, every federal circuit court of appeals to consider a magazine capacity ban had upheld it. That consensus is now broken. The D.C. Court of Appeals has directly disagreed with prior rulings in the First, Second, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, as well as a prior D.C. Circuit ruling in Hanson v. District of Columbia (2024), which had upheld the very same D.C. law. This creates precisely the kind of entrenched disagreement — a circuit split — that the U.S. Supreme Court uses as a primary factor when deciding whether to grant certiorari.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, leading the 18-state coalition, filed a brief explicitly warning that invalidating D.C.’s ban threatens similar laws across the country: “Large-capacity magazines have been used in many horrific mass shootings around the country, including right here in California. I urge the D.C. Court of Appeals to reject this effort to invalidate these life-saving prohibitions.”

What Is Happening Right Now

The District of Columbia has moved aggressively to limit the ruling’s impact. On March 6, 2026, D.C. filed an emergency motion to suspend the opinion’s precedential status. That motion was denied on March 23, 2026. The ruling currently stands as binding precedent in D.C. courts.

On March 18, 2026, D.C. filed a formal Petition for Rehearing En Banc, asking the full D.C. Court of Appeals to reconsider. Support has been swift: Gun Violence Prevention Groups and a coalition of 15+ states filed amicus briefs in support of rehearing on March 25, 2026. D.C.’s motion to expedite consideration was denied on March 23, 2026.

On March 23, 2026, the court ordered Tyree Benson to respond to the en banc petition within 14 days, and invited the United States to do the same. Those responses are due in early April 2026. The court made clear extensions will be granted “only in extraordinary circumstances.”

What Comes Next: Three Possible Paths

Path 1 — En Banc Reversal. If the full D.C. Court of Appeals agrees to rehear the case and reverses the panel, the March 5 ruling is vacated and the magazine ban is restored. This is what D.C. and its allies are fighting for.

Path 2 — SCOTUS Petition. If the court denies en banc review, D.C.’s only remaining option is a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. Given the explicit circuit split and the constitutional stakes, this is widely viewed as a strong candidate for Supreme Court review — which would establish a national standard on magazine bans for the first time.

Path 3 — Legislative Response. Some legal observers have noted D.C. could potentially amend its law to target a specific higher threshold — perhaps banning magazines over 30 or 50 rounds. Whether a revised law would survive Bruen scrutiny is itself uncertain.

Why This Case Matters to Everyone

The core question in Benson v. United States is not just about Washington D.C. It is about what the Second Amendment means for the tens of millions of Americans who own firearms — and the tens of millions more who live in communities where gun violence is an ongoing public health crisis.

For gun rights advocates, the ruling is a logical extension of Heller and Bruen: if the Constitution protects commonly owned arms, and hundreds of millions of 11+ round magazines are in common use, then banning them is unconstitutional regardless of legislative intent. For gun control advocates and public health experts, the ruling is deeply alarming: large-capacity magazines have been present in some of the most devastating mass shootings in American history, and a constitutional rule that forbids any restriction on commonly owned arms leaves communities without critical tools.

The Benson case has forced the courts — and potentially the Supreme Court — to answer, with binding legal authority, how those concerns should be weighed under the Constitution as it now stands. Whatever happens next, the March 5, 2026 ruling has already cemented its place in the history of American constitutional law.