Well, all right again, welcome back yet again to the Gatowski Files, starring our good friend, Stephen Gatowski. He is the owner, founder, and editor-in-chief over at the reload.com. That's the reload.com spelled like it sounds. And as always, there was a hyperlink in the description that you can check out. Stephen, how are you, my friend? I'm doing all right. How are you? Not too bad. Current things aside, the editorial

stuff we won't talk about right now, but we'll maybe, maybe next week we'll delve into it. I

think it's probably worth talking about. In any rate, this week, we are back. We missed last

week because our schedules just kind of didn't meet up, but we are back with you this week to talk

about a couple of things, the first one of which has to do with Washington, D.C., the highest court in D.C. striking down the ammo magazine ban. And I'm going to confess to you folks from the top, I've been busy and have not read up on this stuff. So Stephen is going to fill me in along with you. So talk to us about that first, sir. Yeah, so bottom line, the court held, and this was a panel, three judges on the D.C.

Court of Appeals, and it held that D.C.'s magazine ban, which limits magazines that you can possess

in D.C. to only those that hold 10 or fewer rounds. It's pretty common as far as hardware bans go, and you see around country and states that have

them, the, you know, D.C. is similar to that, to the other states that have this.

But this panel held that it's unconstitutional and violates the Second Amendment.

This was as applied challenge by a criminal defendant who had been charged under DC's magazine law for having a, I think he had a Glock with 30-round magazine,

and the gun was also unregistered, and he did never consider a carry permit. But actually,

this court wiped away all of those charges based on the idea that the magazine ban is unconstitutional and because

he couldn't register a handgun, he couldn't have registered his handgun with that magazine,

therefore the other underlying laws also, or the charges based on that fact, had to be thrown out. Now, it doesn't

enjoin the city from enforcing this law technically, right? Like, just to be clear for people,

the law is in theory at least. So in effect, now it does make it harder to prosecute people

under a precedent like this.

If it remains intact, DC has filed to appeal this ruling to the Anbunk Court, right? So that means to the full panel of this appeals court.

This was just a this was was a three judge panel.

And so now if the court, if the en banc panel decides to take it up,

then the full court would hear.

I think there's seven judges on this court.

...