When the judge struck down part of The Safe Act he noted that the limitations the law set on magazine size were arbitrary. What is a reasonable size for a firearm magazine for civilian use? Most gun safety advocates don't like these sorts of issues. They seem like discussions about arranging the deck chairs on The Titanic. But, guns are part of the warp and weft of our culture. So, the issue really becomes -- who gets what guns to take where and when? That is the topic of this extended diary.
As far as what types of guns should be allowed, the basic principle has already been laid out. Civilians may have a constitutional right to own a firearm, but the ATF reasonably tries to argue that right does not include a right to own weapons or accessories developed for military or law enforcement use. The problem the ATF faces is basically definitional. What are the characteristics of weapons developed for warfare or fighting pitched battles with well-armed criminals?
What size magazine is the "right" size is a basic part of that discussion. Let's let history be a bit of help here. In WWII, the basic infantry weapon used to defeat two totalitarian empires was the semi-automatic M-1. That rifle has a magazine that held 7 rounds. The basic sidearm for our forces in that conflict was the Colt .45 semi-automatic. It held a 7 round magazine. The combat shotguns used in that war used 5 round tube magazines. The basic squad assault weapon in that era, the BAR, used a 20 round magazine (that was the heavy firepower for a squad).
In the years following WWII, the Colt Auto became very popular among civilians, as did all those surplus M-1s. Shotguns remained largely unchanged, the magazines of popular models rarely, if ever, exceeded five rounds. Those were the basic parameters that "defined" civilian firearms in the post-WWII era.
All the changes over the last few decades have been driven by manufacturers' desire for contracts with the military or, secondarily, law enforcement. And, with a little help from their friends, they have turned these innovations into "must-haves" for pro gunners.
That said, things have gone completely crazy. All sorts of the refinements developed for the military or law enforcement have become available to civilians. For example, a front pistol or vertical grip is important when firing a military rifle on full auto because many sub-machine guns have a tendency to rise when used for such rapid fire. If you aren't firing on full auto, then you don't have any reason for a vertical fore grip, unless you intend to convert your semi auto to full auto and need the grip to improve your aim when taking out folks at the mall.
We also have 50-100 round magazines on the market for pistols. We have shotguns on the market that use 20 round magazines. We have rifle magazines on the market that hold 60-100 rounds. What are these, except bigger toys for bigger boys? Did the framers of the Constitution really write the Second Amendment so some guys could claim bragging rights about how big their magazines are?
We also allow the sale of semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines that can easily be converted to full automatic. If you don't believe that, then you need to spend ten minutes on the Internet. For example,the claim is that the Bushmaster, often used in mass killings, can't be converted to full auto. That is true in a traditional, but trivial sense, one can now purchase a trigger mechanism for the rifle that basically gives the shooter a near full auto rate of fire. You can find AK-47 parts for a full auto conversion that are specific to the nations that produced the rifle (e.g., Romania, Poland, etc.). You can even find full auto converter kits for those pistols with their 100 round dual drum magazines.
This is not arming oneself for hunting, target shooting or home defense; it is wholesale madness for which manufacturers and sellers can charge retail.
If we can soundly defeat the Japanese and German empires with weapons that used seven round magazines, then why does a citizen need more rounds than that to protect him or herself? Anything more is just "toys for boys," very dangerous toys.
As pro gunners ask, why does it make sense to regulate rifles when most crimes do not involve rifles with high-capacity magazines? It makes sense because a majority of mass murders do involve weapons with high-capacity magazines.
[Just a Query--If rifles with high capacity magazines are not used by criminals to victimize you, then why do you need one for self-defense? Have deer begun to arm themselves?]
So, We limit all pistol and rifle magazines to seven rounds. Shotguns have a five round limit. So, we put a crimp in the plans of some relatively few mass murderers with our new magazine limitations. We also save some precious lives at no real loss to society.
Who is disadvantaged? We disappoint some boys who want more lethal toys, the firearms industry, guys who want to play soldier, and the pro-gun extremists who don't really care about anyone's rights but trumpet loudly their own perverted perception of their "license" (in the traditional sense of that word) and their desire to engage in licentious behavior that puts others at risk.
Remember Joe The Plumber's word of comfort for victims' families--"Your dead kids don't trump my constitutional rights!" The basic question, though, is constitutional rights to what? That is now our battlefield.