The Department of Justice Just Made a Stunning Reversal

Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News says the Department of Justice has taken a step few expected: it told a D.C. appeals court that Washington, D.C.’s magazine ban is unconstitutional and asked to vacate a conviction secured under that law.

According to Yanis, the government’s brief flat-out states that the United States has changed its position on the law’s validity. That’s not a tweak. That’s a U-turn.

Yanis frames it as a watershed moment. For years, he argues, DOJ defended nearly every gun restriction in sight. Now it’s conceding that a 10-round cap can’t survive the Second Amendment.

The Case Behind the Reversal

Per Yanis, the flashpoint is United States v. Peterson in the D.C. Court of Appeals. Juan Peterson was convicted on multiple counts, including possession of a “large capacity ammunition feeding device” under D.C. Code § 7-2506.01(b).

Peterson appealed. And in that appeal, Yanis says, DOJ told the court it no longer believes the magazine ban passes constitutional muster – and it won’t defend it going forward.

Yanis quotes the government describing convictions under unconstitutional laws as an “ultimate miscarriage of justice.” He calls that language “astronomical,” given the source.

In his telling, DOJ is also asking to wipe Peterson’s magazine count and to stop future prosecutions under that specific D.C. provision. The rest of Peterson’s convictions, Yanis notes, would remain.

Why This Law Was Always Contentious

Yanis stresses that magazines over ten are not exotic accessories. He calls them “standard capacity” in common use with AR-pattern rifles, Glocks, Smith & Wesson pistols, SIGs, AKs – “you name it.”

He links that to the Supreme Court’s framework from Heller and Bruen: arms in common use for lawful purposes are protected, and modern laws must be consistent with historical tradition. 

In his view, there is no founding-era analog to bans on common magazines, so the laws fail.

That’s been the core argument behind cases like Duncan v. Bonta (California) and ANJRPC v. Platkin (New Jersey). Yanis believes DOJ just validated that logic.

My read: Yanis is mapping the DOJ’s D.C. filing onto the Bruen test. If the federal government says a categorical ban on standard gear is unconstitutional in D.C., that’s powerful persuasive ammo in other circuits – even if it’s not binding precedent elsewhere.

A Local Change with National Ripples

Yanis points to the practical fallout. If DOJ is no longer defending magazine bans in D.C., state attorneys general in places like California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois now stand opposed to the very federal department they often cite for support.

He predicts the filing will be cited immediately in those ongoing cases. 

Courts pay attention when the United States changes its mind on a constitutional question – especially in an area where federal prosecutors traditionally push for more tools, not fewer.

That doesn’t automatically topple state laws. But it undercuts the narrative that magazine caps are a mainstream, legally solid policy. Politically, it also deprives state defenders of a friendly federal chorus line.

The Procedural Posture: Hurry Up and Wait

Yanis explains that the D.C. Court of Appeals has held DOJ’s motion in abeyance, waiting for an en banc decision in D.W. v. United States, another magazine case in the same court. That means Peterson’s vacatur request is parked until the full court speaks.

Interestingly, Yanis says even the D.C. Attorney General’s office – which maintains the ban is constitutional – did not object to DOJ’s motion to vacate in Peterson. 

He reads that as the local government standing aside while the dominoes wobble.

Process matters. When an en banc court is already chewing on the core question, other panels typically pause. If D.W. breaks against the ban, Peterson likely benefits quickly. If D.W. narrows the analysis, DOJ’s concession still looms large.

Why Yanis Calls It “One of the Biggest 2A Shifts”

Yanis emphasizes the messenger. He’s blunt: “Welcome to the team… welcome to 1791.” His point is rhetorical – the federal government finally aligning with what he says the text and history have long demanded.

He also notes an earlier signal: he credits Judge Jeanine Pirro, after becoming U.S. Attorney for D.C., with saying she wouldn’t enforce provisions that violate the Second Amendment. In Yanis’s narrative, this motion is the policy rubber meeting the road.

Regardless of how you credit the internal politics, a federal filing confessing constitutional error is rare. DOJ is institutional. It guards wins. It hedges. 

For it to switch sides – especially on a high-profile gun regulation – signals either an internal legal consensus post-Bruen or a strategic recalibration to avoid worse outcomes across the map.

The Bruen Through-Line

Yanis keeps returning to the Supreme Court’s text-and-history test. Under Bruen, governments must justify modern gun laws by pointing to analogous historical regulations. 

He argues there are no analogs for stripping widely possessed, ordinary magazines from law-abiding citizens.

If DOJ agrees – at least in D.C. – it’s acknowledging that the historical record can’t carry the state’s burden. For Yanis, that’s the ballgame. He says magazine bans are unconstitutional. Period.

Even so, courts could try to slice thinner – for instance, by parsing certain capacities or specific contexts. But DOJ’s position in Peterson undercuts the broad categorical bans that many states rely on.

What Happens Next in D.C. and Beyond

Yanis lays out a plausible path: if D.W. lands against the ban, the court could vacate Peterson’s magazine conviction, remand to D.C. Superior Court, and DOJ would move to dismiss that count. He expects the government to stick to its new position in future D.C. cases.

Outside D.C., he predicts the filing becomes a citation staple. Defense briefs will quote DOJ back to state attorneys general: If the United States concedes this is unconstitutional, why are you still prosecuting it?

That doesn’t bind state judges, but it shifts the weight of authority. And weight matters.

Yanis treats this as validation of what he and many gun-rights advocates have argued for years: that bans on “large capacity” magazines are bans on standard equipment used by tens of millions for lawful purposes.

He says it’s not just a win for one defendant. It’s a step toward restoring normalcy—that owning a 15-round Glock mag or a 30-round AR mag shouldn’t turn you into a felon.

Here’s my view. If DOJ’s position is accurately captured in the filing Yanis describes, this is indeed a big deal. Not because one D.C. law disappears, but because the federal government’s litigation stance is a weather vane for courts and cops. 

It changes how prosecutors charge. It changes how judges weigh the record. And it changes the political costs of clinging to bans that can’t clear Bruen.

A Note of Caution

Yanis also flags a caveat. The D.C. statute is still on the books. An administration change could try to reverse course and enforce it again. That’s why he urges repeal, not just non-enforcement.

He’s right on the governance point: policy by memo is fragile. If the law is unconstitutional, the clean solution is legislative cleanup. Otherwise, citizens live under a sword of Damocles—one election away from criminalization.

As Jared Yanis tells it, the Department of Justice just acknowledged a core Second Amendment reality: you can’t outlaw ordinary gear that Americans overwhelmingly own and use lawfully. 

If that position holds – and spreads – it could crack the foundation under statewide magazine bans from coast to coast.

It’s not the last word. But it’s a loud one. And coming from DOJ, that volume carries.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.