Skip to Content

The Hansen Ruling Upheld: A Wake-Up Call for Gun Rights Advocates

The recent D.C. Circuit Court decision in Hansen v. District of Columbia has sent ripples through Second Amendment circles, as the panel upheld Washington D.C.’s 10-round magazine cap. This contentious ruling reaffirms the city’s strict gun laws and has intensified the ongoing debate over the right to bear arms in public spaces. The decision also sheds light on broader judicial trends regarding firearm regulation, sparking concern among gun rights advocates about the future of similar restrictions across the country.

A Two-Part Test from Bruen

A Two Part Test from Bruen
Image Credit: Survival World

The Hansen decision involved an analysis using a two-part test established by the 2022 N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen case, as reported by Ryan Knappenberger for the Courthouse News Service. According to Knappenberger, the test required the panel to first determine if high-capacity magazines were considered “arms” under the Second Amendment. If so, the panel would then evaluate whether Washington D.C.’s restrictions on magazine capacity aligned with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in the U.S.

Magazines as “Arms” Protected by the Second Amendment?

Magazines as “Arms” Protected by the Second Amendment
Image Credit: Survival World

Knappenberger reports that the court found in favor of the plaintiffs on the first point, determining that high-capacity magazines could indeed be classified as “arms.” U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett and Senior Circuit Judge Douglas Ginsburg stated that “a magazine is necessary to make meaningful an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense.” This interpretation implies that, theoretically, a cap on magazine capacity would limit the functionality of firearms in self-defense situations, a stance that some advocates argue leaves little room for magazine caps in general.

An Examination of Historical Analogue

An Examination of Historical Analogue
Image Credit: Washington Gun Law

Despite the initial finding, the judges did not conclude there. Knappenberger notes that the court moved to the second step, examining historical laws as a potential precedent for the magazine ban. Washington D.C., supported by a coalition of gun control organizations and 19 states, presented examples of Prohibition-era restrictions targeting the Thompson submachine gun, which the court found similar enough in purpose to support limiting modern high-capacity magazines. According to the panel, these laws aligned with the “unprecedented lethality” and public safety concerns that characterize modern mass shootings.

Dissension Over Historical Parallels

Dissension Over Historical Parallels
Image Credit: Washington Gun Law

The ruling was not unanimous. U.S. Circuit Judge Justin Walker, appointed by Donald Trump, dissented, arguing that the Bruen ruling was explicit: if an “arm” is in common use, it is protected by the Second Amendment, end of story. Walker disagreed with extending historical comparisons to Washington’s magazine cap, arguing that the absence of a historical cap on ammunition shows a lack of precedent. Knappenberger’s report highlights Walker’s skepticism, noting his belief that the Court should adhere strictly to the “common use” standard without further restrictions.

A Dangerous Precedent?

A Dangerous Precedent
Image Credit: Washington Gun Law

On Washington Gun Law’s YouTube channel, legal analyst William Kirk shared his concerns about the potential ramifications of this ruling. Kirk describes the Hansen decision as a “dangerous ruling” with the potential to pave the way for further gun restrictions. According to Kirk, the court’s use of the language in Bruen could give judges a roadmap to uphold almost any firearm restriction by finding loose historical parallels. The ruling, he argues, presents a strategic problem for gun rights advocates as it effectively arms anti-gun judges with a method to validate nearly any ban by citing historical analogues, however tenuous.

The Bowie Knife Comparison: A Question of Lethality

The Bowie Knife Comparison A Question of Lethality
Image Credit: Washington Gun Law

One of the most contentious aspects of the decision was the court’s comparison between modern high-capacity magazines and historical weapons restrictions, specifically those aimed at the Bowie knife. According to Kirk, the judges cited 19th-century restrictions on Bowie knives to justify Washington D.C.’s magazine cap, with the reasoning that both represent “unprecedented lethality.” Critics of this comparison, including Kirk, argue that it is an exaggerated parallel, as the Bowie knife’s restrictions were largely limited to public carrying, not its ownership or personal use.

Modern Technology and Historical Limits

Modern Technology and Historical Limits
Image Credit: Survival World

A key part of the ruling focused on the argument that mass shootings are an unprecedented modern phenomenon, justifying tighter controls on firearms. Knappenberger notes that the court cited a Congressional Research Service report, which pointed out that mass shootings have increased drastically, going from an average of one per year in the 1970s to over 600 in recent years. This trend, they argue, is due in part to the widespread availability of large-capacity magazines, underscoring their position that modern firearms demand modern controls.

A Liberal Playbook for Gun Control?

A Liberal Playbook for Gun Control
Image Credit: Survival World

Kirk voices his concerns that the Hansen ruling offers anti-gun judges a “perfect playbook” for upholding gun control laws. He suggests that liberal-leaning judges now have a roadmap for dismissing future challenges against restrictions by citing historical analogues as loosely as the D.C. Circuit has done here. This interpretation, Kirk argues, could make it even more challenging for pro-gun groups to push back against these limitations in court, as the precedent would theoretically apply to restrictions on semi-automatic weapons and other high-capacity firearms.

Public Safety vs. Personal Rights

Public Safety vs. Personal Rights
Image Credit: Survival World

The ruling in Hansen brings forth a challenging debate about the role of public safety in Second Amendment cases. The D.C. Circuit Court has placed significant weight on Washington D.C.’s interest in limiting tools that facilitate mass shootings. According to Knappenberger, the court argued that, just as 19th-century lawmakers targeted particular weapons for their lethal capacity, so too can modern laws focus on magazine size to limit the potential for widespread harm. Critics argue that this interpretation of public safety could lead to more generalized and restrictive laws.

An Expected Supreme Court Showdown

An Expected Supreme Court Showdown
Image Credit: Survival World

Bergstrom attorney George Lyon Jr., who represented the plaintiffs, has stated his intention to escalate the case to the Supreme Court. Knappenberger reports that Lyon believes the D.C. Circuit misinterpreted historical parallels by using weapons like the Bowie knife as a justification for the magazine cap. Lyon’s ultimate goal is to have the Supreme Court clarify the limits of Bruen and provide a definitive answer on whether high-capacity magazine bans can stand under the Second Amendment.

The Future of Gun Control

The Future of Gun Control
Image Credit: Survival World

William Kirk warns that the Hansen ruling could represent a turning point in the fight over gun rights in America. He suggests that if the Supreme Court fails to intervene, lower courts may continue to apply similar justifications to uphold additional restrictions. This would not only impact magazine limits but could also extend to various firearms that states currently seek to regulate under assault weapon bans. Such a precedent, Kirk argues, would make it considerably more challenging for gun rights advocates to push back against these restrictions in court.

The Path Forward for Gun Rights Advocates

The Path Forward for Gun Rights Advocates
Image Credit: Survival World

With Hansen expected to make its way to the Supreme Court, gun rights advocates are preparing for a critical showdown. Should the Supreme Court choose to hear the case, it could offer clarity on the extent to which historical analogues can be applied to modern gun restrictions. Kirk and other Second Amendment supporters are urging the Court to use this opportunity to refine the Bruen test, hoping to limit how broadly lower courts interpret historical comparisons.

A Moment of Reckoning

A Moment of Reckoning
Image Credit: Survival World

As both Knappenberger and Kirk highlight, the Hansen ruling may be a wake-up call for gun rights advocates. While it’s unclear how the Supreme Court will ultimately rule, Hansen illustrates the growing tension between modern gun control efforts and the foundational right to bear arms. This case has not only reignited the debate over firearm restrictions but has also underscored the importance of vigilance in the fight to preserve Second Amendment rights.