Earlier this year, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro, announced a critical change to policies affecting gun rights in Washington D.C. Acknowledging the District's restrictive firearm statutes infringed the Second Amendment rights of residents, Pirro announced – after consultation with the U.S. Department of Justice and the Solicitor General’s Office – federal prosecutors had been instructed not to seek felony charges for those carrying registered shotguns or rifles. Pirro made clear that D.C.’s blanket prohibition on this activity is in violation of U.S. Supreme Court rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and N.Y. State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Considering the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to lower crime in Washington, D.C., Pirro also made clear her office’s commitment to pursuing charges against those who had not obtained their firearms legally:
"We will continue to seize all illegal and unlicensed firearms, and to vigorously prosecute all crimes connected with them … And we will continue to charge a felon in possession of any of these firearms. Our resolve to prosecute crime is not lessened by defective DC code statutes, as the DOJ works to change those statutes."
More recently, Pirro has determined another D.C. firearms statute cannot be reconciled with the Second Amendment: its blanket ban on possession of so-called large capacity feeding devices. This statute arbitrarily limits the capacity of a firearm magazine to 10 rounds or fewer, well below the factory-specified capacity for many common guns.
Last month, the United States filed a motion to vacate an appellant’s conviction under D.C. Code §7-2506.01(b) for possession of a large capacity feeding device. According to the filing, it is “the United States’s view that a complete ban on large capacity ammunition feeding devices as defined in D.C. Code § 7-2506.01(b) cannot survive constitutional scrutiny,” and, “As a result, the United States is not prosecuting violations of §7-2506.01(b) …” The filing further acknowledged the Department of Justice’s past defense of the statute but noted it “has changed its position as to the validity of the statute under the Second Amendment.”
The motion notably cited Magnus v. United States, 11 A.3d 237, 246-47 (D.C. 2011) as a basis for vacatur: “A conviction for conduct that is not criminal, but is instead constitutionally protected, is the ultimate miscarriage of justice.” The motion further made clear that the United States would not charge any defendants similarly situated to this appellee under D.C. Code § 7-2506.01(b) if arrested today, thus, vacating the conviction for possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device would serve to ensure “fundamental fairness.”
Also worth noting is that while the District of Columbia maintains that the magazine ban remains constitutional, it did not object to the motion to vacate the conviction in this case.
This is a significant development as other cases concerning “large capacity magazines” make their way through federal courts and is consistent with other similarly helpful moves by the Department of Justice. Last month, the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief supporting an NRA-backed challenge to New Jersey’s ban on “Assault Weapons” and “Large Capacity Magazines.” As NRA continues these many fights to protect and advance the Second Amendment in courtrooms nationwide, it is increasingly finding an ally in the Trump administration’s Department of Justice. That bodes well for building foundational strength for freedom in the years to come.
More Like This From Around The NRA
