Readers of News2A will be aware that we’ve watched the Pam Bondi Justice Department with eagle’s eyes when it comes to Second Amendment issues, which we’ve tracked extensively here.
We’re happy to report that the Bondi DOJ moved to vacate a conviction for possession of a large capacity magazine in a case that was overlooked until brought to our attention by Second Amendment lawyer, Kostas Moros in an X post. This case could have significant implications for other lawsuits nationwide.
On September 12, the DOJ submitted a motion before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in the case of Peterson v. United States, asking the court to vacate the conviction of Mr. Peterson for possession of a large capacity magazine, or “a large-capacity ammunition feeding device (PLCFD),” which was illegal under D.C. Code § 7-2506.01(b).
Providing its reasoning for this move, the DOJ stated, “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 nine-page brief was signed by Katherine M. Kelly, Assistant United States Attorney. On September 16, the court responded to the DOJ brief by putting the motion “in abeyance,” or on hold, and then on October 23, the court canceled the upcoming hearing (set for Oct 28) and put the entire appeal on hold, sua sponte (of its own accord), pending the outcome of another case being heard en banc, called D.W. v. United States.
This statement by the DOJ is groundbreaking in that it is the first public statement we are aware of where the DOJ takes a legal position specifically on so-called “large capacity magazines”. This statement is likely to be woven into briefs and oral arguments in numerous cases around the country challenging states’ prohibitions on such magazines, including a major “assault weapons” and high capacity magazine lawsuit against New Jersey – one in which the DOJ has already issued an amicus brief under Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division.
Emphasizing its position that this is not just an “as-applied” situation, the DOJ doubles down on how it would handle other similar cases, writing, “Furthermore, 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 for possession of a large-capacity ammunition feeding device would ensure fundamental fairness.”
What is puzzling for the Second Amendment community is the lack of consistency from the DOJ in how it approaches these cases. For example, in the recent, high profile case of Tate Adamiak, the DOJ asked the court to affirm his convictions – a case that is controversial for the significant documentation showing that the ATF likely fabricated evidence against Mr. Adamiak.
We will continue to watch this case.
