High-capacity gun magazines are illegal in D.C. Trump no longer wants to prosecute violators.

Federal prosecutors say they are coming after illegal guns in D.C. – but not the illegal high-capacity magazines that can feed those guns dozens of bullets at a time.

U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro told a court this week that her office – which handles the majority of violent crime and gun violence in D.C. – will no longer charge people for carrying high-capacity magazines, calling the city’s 17-year-old ban on magazines that hold more than 10 bullets “unconstitutional.”

The change in policy comes amidst a federal surge to tackle crime in D.C., and pledges from Pirro’s office to prosecute illegal guns to the fullest extent of the law. As of Tuesday, Trump officials said that 222 illegal guns had been seized since the surge began in mid-August. (In 2024, MPD seized 2,895 illegal guns.) Since Trump took office, more illegal gun cases have been funneled to federal court, where sentences can be stiffer.

But the move also undermines a local law that can reduce the lethality of shootings (the leading cause of homicides in the city), according to D.C. officials, gun control advocates, and some experts. (Of the 187 homicides in 2024, 153 came from gunshots, according to MPD.) After a high-capacity magazine was found in a D.C. apartment in 2019, then D.C. Police Chief Robert Contee told Fox 5 that the impact of those types of magazines was noticeable. “We are seeing more rifle fire in homicide scenes,” he said.

It also highlights the fact that, because it isn’t a state, D.C. is limited in prosecuting violent crime, a job that is left to the U.S. Attorney’s office. That can mean that if large numbers of cases aren’t prosecuted, residents have no means to demand accountability or vote for someone else. Or, in this case, that a president’s personal and political beliefs can drive decisions on what gets prosecuted and what doesn’t. 

Last month, Pirro’s office similarly said it would no longer charge people solely for carrying rifles or shotguns in the city. In an email, Pirro’s office tells The 51st that the changes on charging decisions for shotguns, rifles, and high-capacity magazines all came down from the U.S. Department of Justice, which earlier this year said it would push to “advance President Trump’s pro-gun agenda and protect gun owners from overreach.” 

That push, though, largely conflicts with local policies. While D.C. allows people to obtain permits to carry concealed handguns, it requires that they get training and restricts where those guns can be carried. Public places like bars, stadiums, government buildings, and the Metro are off-limits, for example. When the ban on high-capacity magazines was first approved in 2008, the D.C. Council said that “magazines holding over 10 rounds are more about firepower than self-defense.” (Scholars at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health say high-capacity magazines are linked to increased fatalities in shootings.) Just over a dozen states similarly ban high-capacity magazines.

"Defying the judiciary and ignoring D.C.’s law is reckless and irresponsible, does nothing to make the District safer, and will inevitably put lives at risk. If the Trump administration wants to save lives and reduce crime, they should make it harder for dangerous people to access guns and cause harm—this does the opposite,” said Spencer Myers, a state and local policy attorney at the gun violence prevention organization GIFFORDS Law Center.

The Biden administration, for one, supported the city’s ban on high-capacity magazines. So too did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which in late 2024 upheld the ban after it was challenged by a group of area residents, who, like many gun advocates, argued that high-capacity magazines are a needed accessory for effective self-defense. “The broader regulation of weapons that are particularly capable of unprecedented lethality includes other prominent examples, such as the ban on sawed-off shotguns held constitutional by the Supreme Court,” wrote the court. That decision was allowed to stand in June, when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the city’s ban on high-capacity magazines. 

Regardless, the Trump administration’s new view was on display this week, when Pirro’s office notified the D.C. Court of Appeals they were moving to vacate a 2023 conviction against Tyree Benson, a D.C. man who was caught with an illegal handgun and a magazine with 31 bullets in it. 

Benson’s attorney – who did not respond to a request for comment – had appealed the conviction, arguing that all the gun charges he faced should be tossed out because the underlying laws violated the Second Amendment. While Pirro didn’t go that far, she did tell the court that her office now views the city’s ban on high-capacity magazines as unconstitutional. 

“Although the United States initially defended that provision against constitutional attack, the United States has changed its position as to the validity of this statute under the Second Amendment,” Pirro’s office wrote, referencing the fact that at the time Benson’s initial appeal was filed – in 2023 – the Biden administration supported the legality of the city’s ban.

During that same appeal, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb – who was elected by the city’s residents – argued in favor of the ban. “The District prohibits the possession of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices in order to avert the use of augmented firepower that is best suited for, and results in, mass casualties,” he wrote.

Beyond D.C.’s ban on high-capacity magazines, a number of the city’s restrictions on guns – including the prohibition on carrying an unlicensed handgun – are facing increased legal challenges. Those challenges stem from the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that found that restrictions on guns can only pass muster if they can be shown to have links to similar laws throughout U.S. history. 

In Benson’s case, the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia has sided with him in arguing that many of the city’s restrictions on guns are unconstitutional. A final ruling from the D.C. Court of Appeals is still pending.