The Trump administration’s Justice Department has delivered a significant blow to gun control advocates by declaring that Washington, DC’s ban on large capacity magazines violates the Second Amendment.
In an unprecedented legal move, the United States filed an unopposed motion to vacate the conviction of Juan Peterson, who had been found guilty on November 9, 2023, following a jury trial for possession of a large-capacity ammunition feeding device under D.C. Code § 7-2506.01(b).
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.
The federal government’s new position draws on Supreme Court rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that arms “in common use” by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes receive Second Amendment protection. Standard-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds are extraordinarily common, with over 700 million in circulation nationwide, according to research by NSSF. These magazines come standard with many of America’s most popular firearms and facilitate armed self-defense.
The Justice Department’s motion invoked powerful legal principles to justify its reversal. Citing Magnus v. United States, the filing declared that “a conviction for conduct that is not criminal, but is instead constitutionally-protected, is the ultimate miscarriage of justice.”
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.”
While the motion acknowledged that constitutional adjudication is “a matter of great gravity and delicacy,” citing In re Bright Ideas Co., the Justice Department determined that avoiding the constitutional question was no longer tenable when the statute itself violated Second Amendment protections.
Kostas Moros, Director of Legal Research and Education at the Second Amendment Foundation, brought attention to the filing on social media. Moros posted on X on October 24, 2025, noting that the United States had moved to vacate Peterson’s conviction “because it is the United States’s position that § 7-2506.01(b) is unconstitutional.”
In a filing in the DC Court of Appeals last month in a criminal matter, the United States moved to vacate the appellant’s conviction under D.C. Code § 7-2506.01(b) for possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device, because “[i]t is the United States’s position that §… pic.twitter.com/7KUfcNlHxe
— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) October 24, 2025
Harmeet Dhillon, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the DOJ, retweeted Moros’ post, saying “I am very proud of the Second Amendment work of this @TheJusticeDept … day by day, we are making progress.”
I am very proud of the Second Amendment work of this @TheJusticeDept … day by day, we are making progress. https://t.co/Xj2HzCXXzA
— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) October 24, 2025
This marks the first time the federal government has taken an official legal position, declaring a specific large-capacity magazine ban unconstitutional. The Peterson case demonstrates the shifting landscape of gun rights litigation, with the government moving from defending the statute to conceding its unconstitutionality. This development could have nationwide implications for the 14 states and DC that currently restrict magazine capacity, potentially undermining the legal foundations for similar bans in California, New Jersey, Illinois, and other jurisdictions.
The case also signals broader trends in judicial scrutiny of firearm regulations. Courts are increasingly examining whether firearm laws align with constitutional protections following the Bruen decision, which could lead to cascading legal challenges to other restrictions. Second Amendment advocates are likely to cite this precedent when challenging similar laws in other jurisdictions, emboldened by the federal government’s acknowledgment that such bans may infringe upon constitutionally protected rights.
With the Justice Department backing away from defense of the ban and actively seeking to vacate convictions under the statute, advocates across the nation see a new dawn for gun rights protections. The District of Columbia, though listed as an intervenor-appellee in the case, now faces the prospect of defending its magazine ban without federal support.
About José Niño
José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.
this seems like a move in the right direction, for the moment. we shall see…
some arms have a “magazine disconnect” which prevents the gun discharging a round hen there is no magazine seated in the well. Thus a magazine IS, in those examples, an essential part or component o the gun. Some jurisdictions argue that the mag is NOT a part o the gun, thus may be prohibited. This being true, when a citizen owns such a gun and mags over ten round capacity are banned, in cases where the ONLY mags made to suit certain arms were never produced, that gun is no longer a gun because it cannot be used. How do… Read more »
one more for rights over fealings
Since the original definition of “magazine” refers to a place to store munitions and Colonial soldiers’ cartridge boxes were sometimes referred to as “magazines” and the Continental Congress, in a 1775 recommendation for forming militias, suggested that each soldier should have a cartridge box capable of holding at least 23 rounds, while a Massachusetts wartime buildup effort also noted that minute-men should be provisioned with “Thirty Rounds of Cartridge and Ball”, the Founding Era standard was far more than 10 rounds to a magazine.
VOTE! The only way to continue to gain momentum is to raise hell and vote.
More good news from the USDOJ: “Two federal prosecutors have been placed on administrative leave just hours after describing the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol as perpetrated by “thousands of people comprising a mob of rioters,” according to two people familiar with the move who were granted anonymity to discuss personnel matters.”
To all you that argue Trump, Bondi, and anyone else is anti-gun and that we were fed a line.
From the article:
This marks the first time the federal government has taken an official legal position, declaring a specific large-capacity magazine ban unconstitutional.
Readem and weep. Oregoneistan, you are next!
One step at a time.
Good always triumphs over evil. Notice that you can find Trump in triumphs and that there is such a thing as the Trump card against the left which they are using now to turn this country around.
God bless America and God bless President Trump!
It’s a step. A small step. But a step.
City governments will never accept that thousands of people besides themselves might be armed too. They only want citizens that are lambs for the slaughter. The Charles Bronson crowd need not apply.
Point A: they reversed the decision because they didn’t believe it would stand up to constitutional law but they are absolutely not supporting magazines that hold anything over 10. They simply didn’t think they could win.
Point B: they didn’t drop the other charges of carrying a gun in DC and think it’s constitutional to not allow the 2A in DC.
Yes it’s a win however they are not being supportive. So didn’t be fooled.