The D.C. Court of Appeals has granted rehearing en banc in Benson, vacating the earlier panel opinion and reopening the fight over the District’s magazine ban and gun registration rules. (Photo: Scott Witner – Magpul PMAG (Left) BCM Metal Mags (Right)
The legal fight over Washington, D.C.’s ban on so-called “large-capacity” magazines is not over. In a new order filed April 22, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals granted rehearing en banc in Benson v. United States, vacated the panel’s March 5 opinion and judgment, and set the case for argument before the full court.
ADVERTISEMENT
That means the earlier panel ruling is no longer controlling, at least for now. The full court will take a fresh look at one of the most important Second Amendment cases to come out of the District in years, and gun owners should be paying very close attention.
This development did not come out of nowhere. Earlier this month, AmmoLand reported that Jeanine Pirro’s U.S. Attorney’s Office said it was no longer defending the constitutionality of D.C.’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds, had moved to vacate Benson’s conviction on that count, and was no longer prosecuting violations of that statute. But the government still wanted Benson’s other convictions tied to D.C.’s licensing, registration, and ammunition laws to remain in place.
ADVERTISEMENT
According to the order, the new briefing must focus on two questions: first, whether D.C.’s ban on magazines capable of holding “more than 10 rounds of ammunition” violates the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied, and if so, which of Benson’s convictions must be reversed; and second, whether the District’s licensing and registration requirements violate the Second Amendment. The second question is whether D.C.’s licensing and registration requirements violate the Second Amendment.
That second question matters just as much as the first, and maybe more. Magazine bans get headlines because they are easy for people to understand. A government says your standard magazine is suddenly contraband, and the constitutional problem is obvious. But D.C.’s licensing and registration regime goes to the deeper issue: whether the government can force peaceable citizens to ask permission, submit paperwork, and clear bureaucratic hurdles before they can exercise a fundamental right at all.
As AmmoLand previously reported, the District filed its own petition for rehearing en banc after the March panel decision. The United States then filed a response arguing the panel went too far when it overturned Benson’s convictions for carrying a pistol without a license, possessing an unregistered firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition. Benson’s counsel, in turn, argued that the government’s filing was really an untimely rehearing petition in disguise.
ADVERTISEMENT
The full court has now swept past that interim fight and put the central constitutional questions squarely on the table. The order also resets the case procedurally. Benson’s opening brief is due within 30 days of the order, the appellees’ briefs are due 30 days after that, any reply is due 21 days later, and any amicus brief must be filed within seven days of the opening brief of the party it supports. The court also said the new briefs will supersede all prior briefs and must be specifically designed for the en banc court.
There is also a practical reason the government and the District wanted this rehearing. In the earlier filing covered by AmmoLand, the U.S. Attorney’s Office warned that the panel’s remedial analysis could affect roughly 300 pending gun prosecutions and potentially reach already closed convictions as well. In other words, the concern was not just Benson. The concern was what Benson might mean for the broader machinery of D.C.’s gun-control enforcement regime.
That is exactly why this case matters to ordinary gun owners far beyond Washington, D.C. This is not just about one man’s convictions. It is about whether courts are finally willing to confront the reality that magazine bans, registration mandates, and licensing schemes are all part of the same anti-gun architecture. One prohibits what millions of Americans commonly own. The others criminalize simple possession unless the citizen first satisfies the government’s preferred process.
For now, the bottom line is simple. The March 5 panel opinion is vacated. The full D.C. Court of Appeals will hear Benson en banc. And the court has explicitly told the parties to brief not only the magazine ban, but also whether D.C.’s licensing and registration requirements themselves can survive Second Amendment scrutiny.
That is big news. It means one of the country’s most hostile gun-control jurisdictions is now headed for a full-court showdown over whether it can keep treating the right to keep and bear arms like a government-managed privilege. Gun owners should watch what happens next, because the answer will not stay confined to the District for long.
.
