New Court Split Could Force Supreme Court to Decide Magazine and AR-15 Ban Cases
The legal fight over so-called “large capacity” magazine bans and semi-automatic rifle restrictions may be heading straight toward the U.S. Supreme Court. A new round of filings from some of the nation’s most experienced constitutional litigators has added serious momentum to that possibility.
Constitutional attorney Mark Smith of the Four Boxes Diner explains the significance of newly filed supplemental briefs in two major Second Amendment cases. Those filings argue that a fresh appellate court ruling has created the kind of legal conflict the Supreme Court typically requires before stepping in.
Attorneys representing gun owners in Duncan v. Bonta and Gator’s Custom Guns v. Wentz have now filed supplemental briefs at the Supreme Court pointing to a critical development.
The filings cite the recent decision in Benson v. United States, where the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled that the District’s ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds violates the Second Amendment.
That decision directly conflicts with rulings from other courts that have upheld similar bans. In particular, the federal Ninth Circuit previously allowed California’s magazine ban to stand in Duncan v. Bonta, while the Washington Supreme Court upheld its state’s restrictions in Gator’s Custom Guns v. Wentz.
This disagreement between courts is known as a “split of authority,” and it is one of the primary triggers that pushes the Supreme Court to grant review. When different courts interpret the Constitution in conflicting ways, the justices often step in to settle the matter once and for all.
According to the new briefs, that moment may have arrived.
The ruling in Benson did more than simply strike down Washington D.C.’s magazine restrictions. The court issued a detailed opinion explaining that magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds are commonly owned and widely used for lawful purposes.
Under the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, firearms regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The D.C. court concluded that bans on commonly owned magazines do not meet that test.
In other words, the court found that these magazines fall squarely within the types of arms protected by the Second Amendment.


