\n<\/p>\n
Washingtonians just notched a landmark Second Amendment victory as the D.C. Court of Appeals<\/span><\/a> held the District\u2019s 10-round limit on magazine sizes unconstitutional. Why is U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro \u2014 who insists<\/span><\/a> that she is \u201ca proud supporter of the Second Amendment\u201d and who may be in the running<\/span><\/a> to be the next Attorney General \u2014 asking the court to second-guess itself?<\/p>\n After decades of struggling under one of the strictest gun-control schemes in the country, residents of the nation\u2019s capital might have expected to breathe a sigh of relief when President Donald Trump was reelected. After all, he boasts<\/span><\/a> of \u201cstanding up for\u201d the right to keep and bear arms, and his Department of Justice is taking some bold steps<\/span><\/a> in that direction \u2014 including filing a lawsuit<\/span><\/a> against D.C.\u2019s ban on many semiautomatic weapons.<\/p>\n The Department should<\/i> also be joining locals in celebrating the recent court decision in Benson v. District of Columbia<\/i><\/span><\/a>. The case began when Tyree Benson was arrested for possessing a gun with a detachable, 30-round magazine. That was illegal because Benson had not registered the gun or obtained a carry license. But Benson had a compelling defense: the District would not have let him register the gun because it bans magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds \u2014 and that restriction is itself unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n D.C.\u2019s highest court agreed and, on March 5, a three-judge panel struck down the ban. A two-judge majority observed that \u201cabout half of the magazines in the hands of our citizenry\u201d hold more than 10 rounds and \u201ccome standard with the most popular firearms sold in America today.\u201d The Constitution does not let a locale ban such \u201carms in common and ubiquitous use by law-abiding citizens across this country.\u201d The Benson<\/i> decision now stands as a monument to common sense, protecting magazines that many Americans rely on.<\/p>\n Surprisingly, the court reached this decision with the encouragement of Pirro\u2019s office. Though she had initially prosecuted Benson, she ultimately agreed that the District\u2019s law violated his rights.<\/p>\n Then something even less expected happened: Pirro asked the court<\/span><\/a> to press rewind. It backed the District\u2019s request for the court to rehear the case en banc, meaning all seven of its judges<\/span><\/a> would participate in the decision.<\/p>\n It is anyone\u2019s guess whether Washington gunowners will manage to run the court\u2019s gauntlet a second time. One of the three judges who heard the case the first time dissented<\/span><\/a> from the decision. All<\/span><\/a> four<\/span><\/a> of<\/span><\/a> the<\/span><\/a> judges who would join the case, if reheard, were appointed by Democratic presidents. Letting the decision stand would vindicate the Second Amendment \u2014 rehearing would roll the dice with virtually no chance of achieving a better constitutional ruling.<\/p>\n Pirro attempted to explain<\/span><\/a> her stance. While noting that she continued to believe the District law is unconstitutional, she fretted that the court\u2019s decision went too far, saying it should have merely limited the law\u2019s application to extremely<\/i> high-capacity magazines. (Never mind that the law the court invalidated is far broader than that.) Further, she argued that the law wasn\u2019t what kept Benson from registering his gun. Had he gone down to the station, the police could have \u201cconfiscate[d] the prohibited large-capacity magazine while registering the firearm itself.\u201d Judge Deahl, the author of the majority opinion, deemed this poppycock, writing<\/span><\/a> that the District could \u201cwith a snap of its fingers\u201d comply with the Constitution by \u201cno longer conditioning the registration and licensure of firearms upon their firing capacity.\u201d<\/p>\n Setting aside the technicalities of D.C.\u2019s gun-registration laws, Second Amendment advocates are wondering<\/span><\/a> why Pirro is working overtime to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The National Association for Gun Rights said her support for rehearing \u201crisks undermining\u201d the Benson<\/i> decision. Gun Owners of America warned: \u201cStop adopting anti-gun positions, DOJ!\u201d <\/i>The Reload<\/i><\/span><\/a> noted that Pirro\u2019s brief \u201cdid not even need to exist.\u201d<\/p>\n This is not the first time Pirro has shown hostility toward the Second Amendment. Back in 2004, she said<\/span><\/a>, \u201cThere is no legitimate purpose in possessing an assault weapon other than to kill as many people as quickly as possible.\u201d Two months ago, she threatened<\/span><\/a>: \u201cI don\u2019t care if you have a license in another district, and I don\u2019t care if you\u2019re a law-abiding gun owner somewhere else. You bring a gun into this District, count on going to jail, and hope you get the gun back.\u201d Following backlash, Pirro put out a social media video<\/span><\/a> casting herself as \u201ca proud high-heeled gun owner.\u201d<\/p>\n Those heels are doing quite the dance on the Second Amendment. Should President Trump nominate her to lead the DOJ, every American gun owner will get to know the dangers of Pirro\u2019s pirouettes, facing an attorney general who voices support for their rights while undermining them at every turn.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n