D.C. Court refuses to pause pro-2A magazine ruling — and Illinois attorneys take notice

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Here's the news that matters for Illinois gun owners: The D.C. Court of Appeals just refused to pause a precedential ruling that struck down magazine capacity limits in Benson v. United States. When a federal appeals court keeps a pro-Second Amendment decision on the books, attorneys fighting similar bans in other circuits — including right here in Illinois — take notice.

What happened in the D.C. ruling

The District of Columbia tried to get the D.C. Court of Appeals to pause the precedential value of its decision in Benson, which found that magazine capacity limits violate the Second Amendment. The court said no. That means Benson remains good law, setting a precedent that standard-capacity magazines are constitutionally protected.

This isn't just academic. When federal courts in one circuit rule that magazine bans are unconstitutional, it creates legal ammunition that attorneys in other circuits can use. The legal reasoning doesn't stop at circuit boundaries — it travels.

Why this matters for our Illinois cases

Right now, we have multiple cases challenging Illinois' PICA magazine ban working their way through the federal courts. In our case, Bevis v. City of Naperville, and in Barnett v. Raoul, attorneys are making the same fundamental argument: that magazines are arms protected by the Second Amendment, and you can't ban the magazines that make firearms function as designed.

The D.C. ruling gives Illinois attorneys a recent federal appeals court decision they can point to when they argue before the 7th Circuit. It's one more precedential brick in the legal wall we're building against magazine bans. Courts look to how other circuits handle similar questions, and now there's a clear federal appeals court ruling saying these bans don't pass constitutional muster.

I've watched attorneys fighting PICA file notices with the 7th Circuit every time a significant pro-Second Amendment ruling comes down from another federal court. This D.C. decision staying in place means they have another strong precedent to cite.

What this means for gun owners and my customers

From behind the counter at Law Weapons, I get the same question every day: "When will these magazine bans get struck down?" The honest answer is that federal litigation takes time, but rulings like Benson staying on the books show the legal momentum building against these bans.

Every federal court that rules magazines are constitutionally protected makes it harder for states like Illinois to defend their bans. The constitutional analysis doesn't change because you cross state lines. If standard-capacity magazines are arms protected by the Second Amendment in D.C., they're arms protected by the Second Amendment in Illinois.

The State of Illinois keeps trying to pretend magazines are some separate, lesser category of item that can be banned without touching the core Second Amendment right. Federal courts keep rejecting that argument, and this D.C. ruling staying in place is more evidence that approach won't work.

Where we are right now

Our Bevis case and Barnett v. Raoul continue moving through the 7th Circuit. The legal challenges to PICA's magazine ban are active, and attorneys have more precedential support than ever. Every ruling like Benson that remains good law strengthens the constitutional case against these bans.

Illinois gun owners are still living under PICA's restrictions, but the legal foundation for striking them down gets stronger with each federal court that recognizes what should be obvious: you can't protect a constitutional right while banning the items that make it meaningful.

We keep watching. We keep fighting. And we keep serving the people who refuse to be treated like second-class citizens for exercising a constitutional right.

— Robert Bevis, Law Weapons & Supply