Judge Upholds Rhode Island Magazine Ban

USGI Metal AR-15 Magazines
USGI Metal AR-15 Magazines

PROVIDENCE, Rho -(Ammoland.com)- A Rhode Island Federal District Judge has shown disdain for the Bruen decision while denying a preliminary injunction to Ocean State Tactical over the State’s “Large Capacity Feeding Devices” ban.

Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. issued the decision today in the Federal District Court of Rhode Island. Ocean State Tactical, LLC, and four Rhode Island citizens sued the state over its magazine ban that prohibited magazines holding more than ten rounds. The legislation was passed on June 21, 2022. It had a built-in grace period of 180 days for owners to either permanently modify their magazines so they could not hold more than ten rounds, sell the item to an out-of-state federally registered firearms dealer, or turn them in to the police. If gun owners refused, then the state would consider them felons.

The plaintiffs sued the state claiming violations of several amendments. The first charge was that the state violated the citizens’ Second Amendment rights. The Obama appointee ruled that magazines were not “arms,” so the Second Amendment does not protect them. His distinction flies in the face of long-accepted definitions and multiple other legal cases. Without a magazine, a firearm cannot function. Therefore, if a magazine is not considered an “arm,” all magazine-fed guns could be rendered inoperable.

The plaintiffs also sued the state for violating the “takings” clause of the Fifth Amendment. His allegation stems from the police demanding that gun owners turn in their magazines for no compensation. According to the Constitution, just compensation must be paid to the gun owner. The judge ignored the statute laid out in the country’s founding document.

The group also stated that their Fourteenth Amendment rights were being violated. They claimed that Rhode Island was violating their right to due process. They claimed deprivation of rights under the color of state law. They asked the judge to issue a preliminary injunction against the new law.

The Democrat judge ruled against the plaintiffs, stating that they lacked “a likelihood of success on the merits, that they will not suffer irreparable harm if the law is allowed to take effect, and that the public interest is served by denying injunctive relief.”

The judge stated that even if magazines were arms, the plaintiffs didn’t convince him that magazines were related to “self-defense”; therefore, there could not be a Second Amendment violation, which the judge claims are the purpose of the Second Amendment.

The judge also stated that the Fifth Amendment was not violated. He claimed that taking the magazines without compensation was within the power of the police. He is referring to the claim that the law will “lower the risk of harm that results from the availability of devices that assist someone intent on murdering large numbers of people.” He calls the law “common-sense public safety legislation,” which is the buzzword of the anti-gun left.

Since the judge ruled that magazines were not “arms,” the judge weighed “public interest” in his decision. He claims that there is an “epidemic of violence in American society there has been layered the ultra-lethal pathogen of mass murders-shootings in which multiple people are killed and, often, dozens of others injured.” He claims that banning magazines it will somehow make mass shootings less deadly.

“While a ban on LCMs does not prevent mass shootings, it unquestionably makes them less deadly.”

The judge later doubles down by writing, “Suffice it to say that in very real terms, the plaintiffs’ proffered harm caused to them by an injunction pales in comparison to the unspeakable devastation caused by mass shooters wildly spraying bullets without end into a crowd of bystanders.”

The judge also claims that the law puts little burden on the plaintiffs because it does not diminish the shooting ability of the gun owner. He reasons that they could acquire multiple ten-round magazines. He also claims there is no evidence that anyone ever needed more than ten rounds in self-defense.

The judge stated: “The law puts no limit on the number of ten round magazines an owner may have at her feet at any one time. The ground can be littered with magazines that, in the aggregate, give the recreational shooter dozens, or even hundreds, of bullets to fire. It is worth noting again that there is no evidence that any person has ever had any need to fire more than ten rounds in self-defense.”

Most shockingly, the judge stated that licensing schemes like the one that has been put on hold in Oregon are Constitutional. Most legal scholars disagree. The judge also dismissed all the plaintiff’s expert witnesses yet, found the State’s expert witnesses credible.

It seems like the judge had his mind made up before even hearing the case.

About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

John Crump

Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Judge McConnell had got to be the most anti-2A jurist currently on the bench. His bias against civilian gun ownership clearly cannot be swayed by reasoning. He should never be allowed to sit before any gun rights case.


It’s obvious that he can’t adjudicate the Constitution without bias. That should be grounds for removal.


Tar and feathers would be the gentlest thing a hundred years ago. This ruling violates the 2nd and approves theft by the government. Nope. It will be overruled, and the judge should be imprisoned for civil rights violations under the color of law.


If we ever get enough states to sign on to a Constitutional Convention, that’s one of the things that need to change. Federal judges are lifetime appointments, and unless these turds can be impeached somehow, we’re stuck with them for life.

Last edited 1 month ago by totbs

This jerk is coming up with this decision to help provide fodder for the anti-gunners in oregoneistan and across the US. He thinks that the more idiot judges that say it is not unconstitutional to change the law regarding the amount a magazine can hold will give them more power over states that argue it. His first mistake in my opinion is that he said a magazine is not an arm. If that is the case, then how does he think he has jurisdiction over something that doesn’t apply. His explanation is far reaching and the garbage that all the… Read more »


It’s not the states that are overriding federal law it’s the Democrat left wing-nuts.

The other Jim

Disgusting; both Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. and Barack Hussein Obama.


Gee, there’s a shock. An Obozo-appointed “judge” ignoring the Constitution and individual rights. Must be a first…


We need to stop saying that the 2nd amendment is about “self defense,” such as defense against criminals. That is a secondary purpose of the amendment. The primary purpose is to repel an invasion or oust a tyrant. It is a military/militia-based right. So, while someone could argue that you don’t “need” a 30-round magazine to fight off a criminal (even though cops routinely have 30-round rifle magazines, and rightly so), they cannot even begin to argue that a 30-round magazine is appropriate for a fight to repel an invader or oust a tyrant. We need to start planting the… Read more »


The primary purpose (of the Second) is to repel an invasion or oust a tyrant. It is a military/militia-based right Nope. READ that Second Article of ammendment one more time. My copy rads: “for the security of a free state”. Makes no reference nor places any limit on what might be threatening that security. No matter whether it s Genral Thomas W Gage sending his troops round to steal you powder and shot take your long guns, close your seaport, hold your ship captive, wild indians overrunning your homes and farms, submarines landing troops on your nearby beach, government goons… Read more »


Yet another constitutional workaround by a Marxocrat judge.
The government within our government isn’t guided by our constitution.


And if all judges were to somehow uphold this unconstitutional crap? Then what? And so what????

Any fourth grader can read and understand the 2A……”shall not be infringed”

Our rights come from GOD? They pre-exist the Bill Of Rights and there would have been NO CONSTITUTION with out it. The second amendment is the backbone of freedom and judges like this are doctrinaire idiots, enemies of the constitution, the country and my grand children.

These judges, these tyrannical, commie, enemy politicians can GO TO HELL!



My error…….”our rights come from GOD. Period! There is no “?”


“It seems the judge has his mind made up before even hearing the case.” Ideology at work. Jurisprudence rendered moot by ideology. When you appoint judges who went to law school at the Frankfurt School (of Cultural Marxism) and not a law school teaching the foundational ideas of our Natural Law based Constitution you can expect decrees to come down before facts and arguments are presented. Elections have consequences, folks. One such permanent blight is federal judges who denounce the very system of federalism they should be defending. Impeachment and removal. That is the answer. But that would require a… Read more »


Immediately that I hear the phrase “common sense” my bullshit antennas start to arc.


Lol. Especially when it comes from a demonkkkratt.


this leftist, obama appointed judge (i repeat myself) is there to render a decision on the constitutionality of the litigation, and in light of the recent myspra v buren decision this should have been a no brainer, which is why he made the wrong ruling, no brain. if you have low blood pressure read the opinion, it will surely go up. the twisted and demented logic used by this judge is infuriating. it is just a bunch of talking points from brady, giffords and demanding mommies. anyone with a single functioning brain can see that this ruling will be appealed… Read more »


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, unless a political party decides otherwise, and gets a judge to approve.

Way too much of this going on.

Last edited 1 month ago by KK

Don’t worry Joe can get his 30 clips in there.


An American’s Birthright is weapons of war. The ability to maintain freedom is second in importance to the freedom of speech and worship in the Bill of Rights. A thirty round magazine is necessary to defend against similarly armed individuals with evil intent. A homeowner in Lansing, Michigan successfully defended himself against eight armed teenagers a few years ago. It wasn’t even in the paper! It was on local TV one day! No type of weapon was described, the ages of the teens, what weapons they had, where the four who were shot were wounded, or any other details you’d… Read more »