The Supreme Court’s Heller (2008) and Bruen (2022) decisions clarified the Second Amendment, though not completely. There is no question the Second Amendment speaks to an unalienable, individual right to keep and bear arms. Arms—and surely parts thereof and accessories—in common use may be possessed and carried in public.

The most common handguns are semiautomatic pistols. Their magazines of varying capacity are integral components. Without magazines, they’re very hard, and slow, to reload single-shot handguns. Since neither Heller nor Bruen specifically address magazine capacity, Democrat—blue—states have added limiting magazine capacity to their other obstructive tactics. The most common ploy is limiting magazines to 10 rounds.

That limitation was part of the Clinton “assault weapon” ban of 1994-2004. As one might expect, it had no effect on crime: 

*The congressionally-mandated study of the federal “assault weapon ban” of 1994-2004 found that the ban had no impact on crime, in part because “the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of gun murders.” Rifles of any type are used in only two percent of murders. Subsequent research conducted by the RAND Corporation found no conclusive evidence that banning “assault weapons” or “large” capacity magazines has an effect on mass shootings or violent crime.

Contemporary anti-liberty/gun grabbers push the 10-round limitation to magically limit mass shooter casualties. This betrays malice and a lack of knowledge of firearm technology. It’s malicious because any weapon that accepts a magazine can accept a magazine of any capacity. It’s deceptive because any magazine can be changed in a few seconds, even by the untrained. 

Graphic: Standard Glock Magazines. Author.

Supposed “high-capacity magazines are standard capacity. The graphic depicts, left to right, three Glock magazines, 30 round, 17 round—standard Glock 17--and 15 round—standard Glock 19--capacities. These are two of the most popular and common handguns ever made. Because the Second Amendment is an inalienable right, arguments of “no one need a magazine of X capacity” are off the table. All can be changed in a few seconds.

The deadliest school attack to date using firearms was the Virginia Tech attack of April 16, 2007. Using two common handguns of 15 and 10 round capacity, the shooter killed 33 and wounded 17. Limiting the 15 round handgun to 10 rounds would have made no difference.

Fortunately, President Trump has directed the DOJ to actively defend America’s Second Amendment rights. A case in point occurring in Washington DC where for the first time in American history an administration has acknowledged that magazine capacity bans are unconstitutional:

Graphic: X Post

The case involves Juan Peterson, who on November 9, 2023 was found guilty of possessing a “large-capacity” ammunition feeding device” under DC code.  

The controversy centers on Peterson’s challenge to his conviction on Second Amendment grounds. On appeal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Peterson argued that the statute infringes upon constitutionally protected rights. In a dramatic reversal, the United States conceded Peterson’s argument and requested that the court vacate his conviction and remand the count to the Superior Court for dismissal.

In their filing, the Justice Department made their position crystal clear: “It is the United States’s position that § 7-2506.01(b) is unconstitutional. As a result, the United States is not prosecuting violations of § 7-2506.01(b), and believes that, in the interests of justice, Peterson’s conviction should be vacated.” The government went further, stating that the statute encroaches upon Second Amendment rights and cannot survive constitutional scrutiny.

Under Bruen the Supreme Court established strict scrutiny, the highest level of review, for Second Amendment cases. The DOJ’s motion was unopposed. This is particularly important:

The government emphasized fundamental fairness, arguing that “because the United States would not charge a defendant similarly situated to Peterson under D.C. Code § 7-2506.01(b) if arrested today, vacatur of Peterson’s conviction would ensure fundamental fairness.”

This also ensures DC will have to defend its magazine ban without federal support. While many DC judges might be inclined to ignore the DOJ and continue to violate the Constitution, this motion—available in full at the link—strongly implies the ban will be overturned at a higher level, which might encourage such judges to apply the Constitution rather than Democrat policy preferences.

This is one of many Second Amendment issues the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide, which may also encourage judges to grant the DOJ’s motion to keep it from the Supreme Court.

Such is the state of the Second Amendment in the waning days of 2025.

Become a subscriber and get our weekly, Friday newsletter with unique content from our editors. These essays alone are worth the cost of the subscription. 

Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. He is a published author and blogger. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.