120 F.4th 223
D.C. Cir.2024Background
- In 2008 D.C. enacted a felony ban on possession of magazines that accept more than 10 rounds (ELCMs), after Heller struck down D.C.’s handgun ban.
- Four D.C. residents (Hanson et al.) challenged the magazine-cap as unconstitutional under Bruen and sought a preliminary injunction to keep/use 12–17‑round magazines in the District.
- The district court denied the preliminary injunction after applying Bruen’s text-and-history test, concluding either ELCMs fall outside the Amendment’s core or the law is analogous to historical regulations.
- The D.C. Circuit panel affirmed, finding plaintiffs likely satisfy Bruen step one (ELCMs are ‘‘arms’’ in common use) but that the government met its burden at step two by identifying historical analogues (regulation of unusually lethal weapons and related Prohibition‑era measures).
- The court also held plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm, timely diligence, or that the equities/public interest favor a status‑quo‑altering injunction given the risk of a flood of magazines if enjoined.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ELCMs are covered by the Second Amendment (plain text/common use) | ELCMs are "arms" and in common use for lawful self‑defense (so step one covered) | Government did not dispute common‑use for step‑one purposes on this record | Court: Plaintiffs likely succeed on step one — ELCMs are arms in common use for self‑defense |
| Whether the magazine cap is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition (Bruen step two) | No historical tradition of banning or capping magazine capacity; modern ELCMs have no close analogue | Magazine cap is analogized to longstanding regulation of unusually lethal weapons and Prohibition‑era restrictions on rapid‑fire devices | Court: Government carried burden at this interlocutory stage — historical analogues (regulation of particularly lethal weapons/machine‑gun era measures) are sufficiently similar |
| Role of ‘‘dramatic technological change’’ and ‘‘unprecedented societal concerns’’ in analogical inquiry | Lack of precise historical twin defeats regulation; historical silence on capacity cuts against the cap | Modern ELCMs implicate both technological change and unprecedented mass‑shooting risk, permitting a nuanced analogue approach | Court: Because ELCMs implicate both criteria, lack of exact historical match does not preclude upholding the regulation at preliminary stage |
| Preliminary injunction factors (irreparable harm, equities, public interest) | Denial harms plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights and self‑defense preparedness | Granting injunction risks influx of ELCMs, public‑safety harms, and disrupts 15‑year status quo; plaintiffs lack time‑sensitive need and diligence | Court: Plaintiffs failed to make the clear showing of irreparable harm or favorable equities; denial of preliminary injunction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess arms in common use; historical inquiry limits permissible regulations)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (when text covers conduct, government must show regulation is consistent with Nation's historical tradition; analogical inquiry guidance)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunction: clear showing of likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest)
- United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (Second Amendment protection tied to weapons in common use for lawful purposes; historical tradition concept)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (Second Amendment is incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994) (some weapons are sufficiently common that regulation requires consideration of notice and common‑use status)
- Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (discusses limits on as‑applied preliminary relief where merits are clear)