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 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.

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

I am very proud of the Second Amendment work of this @TheJusticeDept … day by day, we are making progress. https://t.co/Xj2HzCXXzA

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.