Losing Count: The Empty Case for “High-Capacity” Magazine Restrictions

By Matthew Larosiere Matthew Larosiere

Since the early 1990s, several states have passed restrictions
on firearm magazines as a purported public safety measure. To date,
the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to hear cases surrounding
these “high-capacity” magazine bans.¹ This has
led to a fractured and unpredictable state of the law. These laws,
as well as the “assault weapon” bans they tend to come packaged
with, are abridgments of the natural right to self-defense.
Moreover, they fail to provide sufficient benefit to justify their
inherent costs.

There are three main problems with these bans. First, the term
“high-capacity” is used by legislatures to describe standard,
common equipment rather than magazines that stretch a weapon’s
capacity beyond its intended design. Second, discussions of the
issue are replete with fundamental misconceptions about firearm
magazines and their place under the Second Amendment. In fact, some
courts have held that magazines have no constitutional protection
at all, contravening precedent indicating that the right to keep
and bear arms protects all bearable arms in common use, including
their magazines and ammunition, regardless of the arms in existence
at the time of the Founding. Magazines are not mere accessories,
but essential components of modern firearms.

Third, there is little evidence that high-capacity magazine
restrictions have any positive effects on public safety. To support
these laws, states point to horrific crimes involving
large-capacity magazines. …Read the Rest

Source:: Cato Institute