Important Judicial Decisions Regarding Self-Defense Law
The following legal decisions concern the law of self-defense. Some of the rulings are final and others are not. They’re presented here, along with salient excerpts, to be read for their excellent judicial logic about the absolute civil right of armed self-defense as established by the framers of the US Constitution.
[ Read the SemperVerus article, USA State Constitutions Providing for Armed Self-Defense ]
Also see the Firearms Policy Coalition Interactive State Freedom Index Map, which ranks the percentage of Second Amendment freedom citizens have in each of the 50 states and Washington, DC for the unencumbered civil right to keep and bear arms (only Kansas and New Hampshire earn a perfect 100% score).
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruling: Tyree Benson v. United States (March 5, 2026) by Associate Judge Joshua Deahl (pdf).
- This ruling states that, because firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition are in common and ubiquitous use for lawful purposes, the District of Columbia’s outright ban on them violates the US Second Amendment, and that these magazines qualify as “arms” protected by the Constitution.
“Magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition are ubiquitous in our country, numbering in the hundreds of millions, accounting for about half of the magazines in the hands of our citizenry, and they come standard with the most popular firearms sold in America today. Because these magazines are arms in common and ubiquitous use by law-abiding citizens across this country, we agree with Benson and the United States that the District’s outright ban on them violates the Second Amendment.”
“An 11+ magazine facilitates armed self-defense because it is used to load a firearm, and it then feeds successive cartridges into the gun’s firing chamber as a person shoots—a particularly essential feature for semiautomatic guns—eliminating any need to manually reload the gun until the magazine is spent and itself needs to be reloaded….Because magazines feed ammunition into certain guns, and ammunition is necessary for such a gun to function as intended, magazines are ‘arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment….Magazines of all capacities are thus arms covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment….Any components integral to a firearm’s operation, like magazines, fit comfortably within the Second Amendment’s protection of arms.”
“…arms that are utterly ubiquitous in this country, like the hundreds of millions of 11+ magazines, cannot be banned. Just as handguns cannot be banned because they are the most preferred [type of] firearm in the nation, the 11+ magazines that tend to accompany them are the most preferred type of magazine and likewise cannot be banned.”
“…one perfectly coherent view is that law-abiding citizens everywhere should have access to the same arms that are legal, widely owned, and generally available throughout the rest of the country.” *
[ Read the SemperVerus article, Discreet Body Armor for Self-Defense and Church Security ]
- US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling: Baird v. Bonta (January 2, 2026) by US Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke (pdf).
- This ruling strikes down California’s open carry ban, finding it inconsistent with the Second Amendment and the nation’s tradition.
“For most of American history, open carry has been the default manner of lawful carry for firearms. It remains the norm across the country—more than 30 states generally allow open carry to this day, including states with significant urban populations. Indeed, several of our Nation’s largest cities and states recently returned to unlicensed open carry by explicitly authorizing it. For example, Texas reauthorized open carry without a license in 2021. Kansas likewise transitioned back to allowing open carry without a permit in 2015. And other states that placed restrictions on open carry in recent decades have also removed those burdens.”
“California’s ban on open carry in counties with a population greater than 200,000 (roughly 95% of the state’s population) is inconsistent with the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Applying the standard set forth in Bruen, the historical record makes unmistakably plain that open carry is part of this Nation’s history and tradition. It was clearly protected at the time of the Founding and at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment….There is no record of any law restricting open carry at the Founding, let alone a distinctly similar historical regulation.” *
