The basis for the ten-round limit was research by a so-called expert who claimed that, on average, two or three rounds were fired in a defensive gun use situation. However, when asked by U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez to produce the details of her research, the expert declined or was unable to comply.
In every single state that has a “large-capacity” magazine ban, police and other government employees, such as district attorney investigators or judges, are exempt and can purchase any magazines they wish. There is no reason for this.
Yes, a law enforcement officer is more likely to need to use a firearm than the typical citizen, but how often is it necessary for them to use one entire magazine, let alone the two extras? If law enforcement officers trained to handle hostile situations need 15 or 17 rounds, how does it make any sense to limit a private citizen, with none of the advantages, including training and ballistic armor, to ten? Do our governments really want to say that citizens’ lives aren’t as valuable as a law enforcement officer’s? Should we advise citizens to start attaching magazine pouches to their pajamas and practice fast reloads?
This is gun control for the sake of gun control and, like every other miracle cure, it’s a nothingburger that doesn’t have an impact on violence because it only matters to citizens that comply. The real perpetrators of violence aren’t going to pay any attention; it’s easy for them to get standard-capacity magazines and there’s no way to trace them.
By Bill Cawthon
Author and consultant on Second Amendment issues
2ASociety.org
