Update: So I can save you the reading, I withdraw the question. I just hope we do not get worse restrictions railroaded through if pro-2a legislators refuse to partake in productive negotiations. (I am thinking of the Stimulus and Healthcare Reform bills.)
I am generally against any restrictions, but I am more worried about pro-2a folks missing the conversation entirely and an arbitrary limit being enacted without regard to real-world defense techniques and strategies.
I hate to say it from a personal rights standpoint, but if it came down to a 20rd cap on new magazines in exchange for for national carry and protections against further restrictions, I might go for it. I am really not interested in hearing the "shall not be infringed" side, as I largely agree, but I also suspect the SC would uphold a capacity ban as long as it did not infringe upon certain practical uses (such as personal defense.) What I am wondering is what is: if a cap looks likely to pass, what is a realistic number that does not have a significant impact on SD training?
Why 20? Well 10 is arbitrary as well, but leaves many mid and full-sized handguns (the kind suited for greater accuracy in a SD environment) with artificially wasted space. At 20rds, very few defensive handguns would be impacted in this way.
Additionally, 20rd AR mags are widely available and are almost as suitable for home defense (and other uses) as the larger magazines. Similar logic could be applied to most other detachable magazine rifles. As with the handgun mags, my thought is to allow the capacity to be limited only to the point that functionality is not lost or needlessly hampered.
Am I wrong in worried about a bill being passed w/o participation? After all, our non-participation allowed the other side to arbitrarily define hi-capacity mags as 10rds or more and I have never seen any science to indicate why >10rds should be defined as "high capacity". Would it impact your thought process if that arbitrary definition was changed?
I am generally against any restrictions, but I am more worried about pro-2a folks missing the conversation entirely and an arbitrary limit being enacted without regard to real-world defense techniques and strategies.
I hate to say it from a personal rights standpoint, but if it came down to a 20rd cap on new magazines in exchange for for national carry and protections against further restrictions, I might go for it. I am really not interested in hearing the "shall not be infringed" side, as I largely agree, but I also suspect the SC would uphold a capacity ban as long as it did not infringe upon certain practical uses (such as personal defense.) What I am wondering is what is: if a cap looks likely to pass, what is a realistic number that does not have a significant impact on SD training?
Why 20? Well 10 is arbitrary as well, but leaves many mid and full-sized handguns (the kind suited for greater accuracy in a SD environment) with artificially wasted space. At 20rds, very few defensive handguns would be impacted in this way.
Additionally, 20rd AR mags are widely available and are almost as suitable for home defense (and other uses) as the larger magazines. Similar logic could be applied to most other detachable magazine rifles. As with the handgun mags, my thought is to allow the capacity to be limited only to the point that functionality is not lost or needlessly hampered.
Am I wrong in worried about a bill being passed w/o participation? After all, our non-participation allowed the other side to arbitrarily define hi-capacity mags as 10rds or more and I have never seen any science to indicate why >10rds should be defined as "high capacity". Would it impact your thought process if that arbitrary definition was changed?
Last edited: