On arbitrary magazine capacity limits

by wfgodbold

Robert VerBruggen over at NRO highlights a major problem with New York’s new seven-round magazine limit: chiefly that most modern handguns don’t have seven-round magazines.

At all.

One commenter asked whether “high” capacity magazines gave an advantage in a gunfight, but not against unarmed targets, and I responded with this:

Increased magazine capacity confers an advantage when one is limited by magazine quantity. If one wears gear making it feasible to carry a large number of magazines (as the Aurora shooter did), then the capacity of those magazines does not confer so great an advantage.

In other words, if you’re ammunition-limited, magazine capacity doesn’t matter. If you’re magazine-limited, magazine capacity does matter. Mass shooters have generally been the former, and the law abiding the latter.

I don’t carry because I want to shoot someone, just like I don’t have a first aid kit in my car because I want to practice emergency medicine.

I carry (when I can) because should I need immediate protection, the government has no obligation to provide it.

About these ads

2 Comments to “On arbitrary magazine capacity limits”

  1. I dare say the non-existence of seven-or-under magazines for a majority of pistols was precisely the point – the NY legislators knew that outright banning handguns, or even specific types of handguns, would be an immediate “fail” on account of DC vs. Heller, but go at it sideways and ban magazines? Well, hell, that might just work.

    Or, at least, so the idiots thought.

    The good news is 7-10-rounders are grandfathered. The bad news is they wear out, and 10+ magazines were “grandfathered” once upon a time, too…

    • I dunno. I find it hard to believe the NY legislature would think an end run around de jure gun bans would satisfy the strictures of the Constitution. If you can’t ban handguns, neither can you ban handgun ammo (as that would make handguns useless), nor can you ban firing ranges (as concomitant with the right to keep and bear arms is the right to attain proficiency with those arms–as Chicago already found out).

      On the other hand, legislators are notoriously stupid.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 181 other followers

%d bloggers like this: