A Major Victory on LCMs

 Benson v. U.S. (D.C.App. 2026) involved a probable ne'er-do-well charged with:

Benson was:

indicted for (1) possession of a “large capacity ammunition feeding device,” D.C. Code § 7-2506.01(b); (2) possession of an unregistered firearm, id. § 7-2502.01(a); (3) carrying a pistol without a license, id. § 22-4504(a); and (4) unlawful possession of ammunition, id. § 7-2506.01(a)(3).

Their summary conclusion:

To preview our answers to those  central questions, they are that 11+ magazines are unquestionably arms, they are in not only common but ubiquitous use for lawful purposes, and there is no history or tradition of blanket bans on arms in such common use, so that the District’s magazine capacity ban violates the Second Amendment. Third, we reject the District’s argument that Benson’s facial challenge to the District’s ban on 11+ magazines should nonetheless fail because he in fact possessed a magazine holding 30 rounds....

Magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition are ubiquitous in our country, numbering in the hundreds of millions, accounting for about half of the magazines in the hands of our citizenry, and they come standard with the most popular firearms sold in America today. Because these magazines are arms in common and ubiquitous use by law-abiding citizens across this country, we agree with Benson and the United States that the District’s outright ban on them violates the Second Amendment. See generally District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).

In more detail deeper in the decision:

The District next counters on the merits that 11+ magazines, by themselves, are “practically harmless” and of “no use” without ammunition and a receiver (the firearm’s core component), so that magazines themselves are not arms. That is not a defensible approach to identifying what constitutes an arm—a gun is also practically harmless and of no use without ammunition, but it is still obviously an arm. The District’s position that magazines are not arms has a couple of glaring flaws. First, it ignores Bruen’s clear explanation that arms include “instruments that facilitate armed self-defense,” which magazines clearly do by reloading the gun and enabling semi-automatic firing. 597 U.S. at 28. Second, the District’s view reduces to the absurd proposition that legislatures can prohibit all of the core components of firearms—the trigger, the hammer, the slide, the firing pin, the sights, etc.—because none of them do much good without the others, and none of them is strictly necessary to a functioning firearm. See Duncan v. Bonta, 133 F.4th 852, 897 (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc) (Bumatay, J., dissenting), cert. pending, No. 25-198 (U.S. filed Aug. 15, 2025) (“[T]he Second Amendment’s protection of ‘Arms’ must extend to their functional components,” or “the Second Amendment would be a shallow right—easily infringed by indirect regulation.”); id. at 917 (Vandyke, J., dissenting) (“[U]nder that logic, basically every part of a firearm is an ‘optional component’” and thus “not protected under the Second Amendment.”).

Really encouraging reminder the changes President Trump brought to this:

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.

One other point" this creates a circuit split with the federal courts of appeals  over this question. The Court now should hear the appeal of Duncan v. Bonta on this question.