There are really fewer things more foolish than a restriction on magazine capacity. For the maniac, reloading isn’t really a concern. Just take a look at the Parkland killer who reportedly used 10-round magazines because they fit better in the bag he was using to hold his ammo. And yet magazine capacity restrictions are a favorite among anti-gunners following any mass shooting.

In Vermont, a formerly pretty pro-gun state, they recently passed a bill restricting magazine capacity. A lawsuit was filed to oppose the move, but now things have gotten serious as the big guns have come in.

The National Rifle Association announced on Thursday it would back a lawsuit filed against Vermont’s new ban on certain firearms magazines.

The group said it will support a suit filed by the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Vermont State Rifle and Pistol Association, a group of sporting goods stores, and Vermont citizen Leah Stewart. The plaintiffs allege that the new ban on rifle magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition and handgun magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds violates the Vermont Constitution.

The magazine ban was part of new gun-control legislation signed into law by Gov. Phil Scott (R.) last week. Scott and his Florida colleague Gov. Rick Scott have both signed new gun-control legislation in the wake of the Parkland school shooting that left 17 dead and the protests for new gun and magazine bans that followed. Both Republican governors are now facing NRA-backed lawsuits over their new laws.

The NRA said Vermont’s magazine ban, which affects the magazines that come standard with many of the most popular rifles and handguns on the market, will outlaw ammunition feeding devices that millions of Americans currently own.

“The magazines Vermont has now banned are owned by millions of law-abiding Americans,” Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. “In fact, nearly half of all magazines in the nation would now be deemed ‘large capacity’ by Vermont.”

Cox said magazine bans have not been effective in other states and, in his view, only serve to punish law-abiding citizens.

But, then again, punishing law-abiding citizens is what all gun control laws do.

I mean, it’s not like the criminals will get rid of their 30-round magazines, now will they? And if you do, you’re as deluded as the people who think this will actually save lives. If anything it’ll cost them.

That’s the legacy of all gun control. For all the feel-good messaging you see day in, day out, the reality is that gun control kills. It creates an environment where the criminals know they won’t meet any armed resistance. They know they can act with impunity because the greatest equalizer mankind has ever invented, the gun, is nowhere to be found.

Magazine capacity is a weird thing. For the criminal, it means nothing. For the law-abiding, changing magazines under stress is a point where you can easily be killed. That’s why the military went from the 20-round magazines for the M-16 to the 30-round magazines. More tends to be better.

But by treating us like we’re all bad guys, even though we’re not, laws like this make it harder for the law-abiding to keep themselves safe.

More and more, I’m starting to think that’s by design.