WASHINGTON, DC — Firearms Policy Coalition and two Washington, D.C., gun owners asked the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to reconsider rules that kept their challenge to the District’s magazine ban out of court, filing an opening appeal brief and a petition for initial hearing en banc on October 15.
The plaintiffs, William Wehr-Darroca and Gary Stemple, want the court to reverse a standing dismissal and allow their Second Amendment lawsuit to proceed. Their new filings seek a route back into court rather than announcing a decision against the magazine restriction.
The District’s law generally prohibits knowingly possessing, selling or transferring ammunition-feeding devices that hold, or can readily be restored or converted to hold, more than 10 rounds. It applies whether or not a device is attached to a firearm.
The plaintiffs say their handguns came with magazines prohibited in the District, so they left those magazines elsewhere and bought compliant replacements. They contend that avoiding conduct barred by a criminal law should not require them to face a special threat of prosecution before challenging it.
The district court dismissed the case on September 22, 2025. Its opinion said binding D.C. Circuit precedent required more than an allegation that the owners would engage in the prohibited conduct but for the law. The plaintiffs acknowledged they could not meet that precedent while preserving their argument that it should be overturned.
The October 15 petition asks the full appeals court to revisit that threshold. The accompanying brief also advances an alternative theory: money spent complying with the restriction constitutes an injury sufficient to establish standing. The plaintiffs rely on the circuit’s recent Angelo decision for that argument.
The appeal is docketed as No. 25-7159. The requested relief would reverse the dismissal and return the case for further proceedings, leaving the constitutional merits of the magazine ban for subsequent litigation.
Timeline
Legal and safety breakdown
Standing and the merits answer different questions. Standing concerns whether particular plaintiffs have a sufficiently concrete injury, connected to the challenged government action and capable of being addressed by a court. A merits ruling would decide whether the restriction violates the Second Amendment.
The lower court applied the D.C. Circuit’s Navegar, Seegars and Parker precedents. The plaintiffs ask the appeals court to change that approach or recognize their compliance costs as a sufficient injury. Those are litigating positions, not new holdings in this appeal.
D.C. Code Section 7-2506.01(b)-(c) supplies the challenged restriction and definition. The definition excludes an attached tubular device designed for, and operating only with, .22-caliber rimfire ammunition. Filing an appeal or requesting full-court review does not itself suspend the statutory prohibition.
Safety Tip: Check current firearm and magazine rules before entering a new jurisdiction, including rules that apply to detached magazines. Keep equipment secured during lawful travel and do not treat a pending lawsuit as permission to disregard an existing restriction.
![[VIDEO] Should You Verbally Warn An Intruder?](https://imagedelivery.net/sbm_lYeJbALkepJgtmRD5w/concealednation.org/2014/08/ScreenHunter_73-Aug.-14-13.51.jpg/w=728,h=381)