The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), joined by the National Rifle Association (NRA), has filed a joint amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in a closely watched case challenging Washington D.C.’s ban on so-called “high-capacity” firearm magazines that hold more than ten rounds.
The case, Andrew Hanson, et al. v. District of Columbia, et al., has broad national implications and could prompt the high court to resolve growing disagreement among lower courts over the legal status of firearm magazines under the Second Amendment.
READ: Former Border Protection Officer Sentenced In Texas For Bribery And Alien Smuggling
“The very essence of the Second Amendment is to protect the right to keep and bear arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The language of the Second Amendment does not stipulate which bearable arms are protected — only that they are.”
The lawsuit challenges the District’s law that prohibits the possession, sale, or transfer of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. Plaintiffs argue that such magazines are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens and therefore protected under the Second Amendment.
The SAF and NRA argue in their brief that such restrictions are unconstitutional and that magazine capacity limits violate the “text, history, and tradition” framework outlined by the Supreme Court in Bruen v. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (2022), which redefined how courts evaluate gun control laws.
SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, who filed the brief on behalf of SAF, said the court must clarify several unresolved questions:
- Whether magazines qualify as protected “arms” under the Second Amendment;
- What constitutes “common use” for determining if an item is protected;
- Whether arms considered useful in military contexts are also constitutionally protected for civilians.
“In our brief,” Kraut stated, “we remind the court that repeating arms predate the Second Amendment by roughly three centuries, and that semiautomatic firearms were invented in 1885. Detachable box magazines have been around since 1862. There’s no historical precedent for banning them.”
READ: 3 U.S. Soldiers Confirmed Dead In Lithuania After Armored Vehicle Recovery; One Still Missing
Lower courts have issued conflicting rulings on whether large-capacity magazines are protected by the Second Amendment. Some circuit courts have upheld magazine bans, citing public safety and mass shooting concerns, while others have questioned whether such bans are consistent with constitutional rights.
That divide is a key reason why SAF and NRA are urging the justices to hear the case and provide clarity.
“Because of the lower court split on whether magazines are ‘arms,’ we believe the high court needs to resolve this controversy without further delay,” Gottlieb added.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Connect with us: Follow the Tampa Free Press on Facebook and Twitter for breaking news and updates.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
