D.C. magazine-ban ruling lands in the 7th Circuit record — and that matters for Illinois

SPRINGFIELD, IL — Here’s the news: on March 11, lawyers fighting Illinois’ PICA ban filed a notice with the Seventh Circuit pointing the judges to a fresh Second Amendment decision out of Washington, D.C. — a ruling that overturned a conviction under D.C.’s large-capacity magazine ban. The State’s response was predictable: they say the D.C. decision is an outlier and the Seventh Circuit doesn’t have to follow it.

Why this matters is simple. The Seventh Circuit still hasn’t issued its decision in the consolidated PICA litigation (the Barnett/Bevis group of cases) after oral argument last September. Every new, serious ruling on magazines and “common use” is a reminder that the Constitution doesn’t change just because a legislature doesn’t like what ordinary Americans own.

The D.C. ruling: magazines are “arms,” and they’re common

According to Capitol News Illinois reporting, the D.C. Court of Appeals held (2–1) that magazines of any capacity qualify as “arms” under the Second Amendment — and noted that so-called “large-capacity” magazines are ubiquitous in the United States, numbering in the hundreds of millions and making up about half of the magazines owned by Americans. That’s not a fringe item. That’s normal equipment that comes standard with many of the most popular firearms sold today.

Illinois’ PICA ban isn’t just about rifles. It’s also about magazines, and the State keeps trying to pretend magazines are some separate, lesser category of “accessory.” They aren’t. A firearm that can’t function as designed is not a meaningful right.

What Illinois is telling the Seventh Circuit

The Attorney General’s office argues the Seventh Circuit isn’t bound by a D.C. court and calls the Benson decision an outlier. Fine — nobody is saying the Seventh Circuit has to rubber-stamp D.C.

But courts are supposed to apply Bruen honestly. When another high court says “magazines are arms” and backs it up with real-world commonality, that’s relevant authority — and it highlights the problem with bans that try to legislate away what’s “common” by criminalizing it.

What this means for gun owners (and for my customers)

From the counter at Law Weapons, the impact isn’t theoretical. PICA has forced Illinois gun owners to navigate a minefield of confusing product rules, shifting enforcement priorities, and constant uncertainty. Customers ask the same question every day: “Is the Seventh Circuit going to finally rule?”

This new development won’t decide the case by itself — but it adds pressure in the right place. The Seventh Circuit judges know their opinion will be read by the Supreme Court and by the entire country. The record keeps filling up with decisions that treat “common use” like it actually means something.

Where we are right now

As of this week, public reporting still reflects that the Seventh Circuit heard argument in September and has not yet issued its decision, with PICA remaining in effect while the appeal is pending.

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