For some reason, anti-gunners seem to find it troubling if a firearm can carry “too many” rounds. I put that in quotes because, well, that number is completely arbitrary and varies from person to person to some degree. After all, it wasn’t all that long ago that Oregon sought to limit round capacity to just five shots.
Anyway, they think that too many rounds somehow turns a firearm from an effective tool for self-defense into a murder-death-kill device, so they love to ban magazines they deem “high-capacity.”
Of course, these bans get challenged and are sometimes overturned.
Unfortunately, that didn’t happen in Colorado.
The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday affirmed the state’s ban on large-capacity gun magazines, finding the law does not violate the state constitution.
The court unanimously upheld the ban on magazines that hold more than 15 rounds, saying it is a “reasonable exercise of the police power that has neither the purpose nor effect of nullifying the right to bear arms in self-defense.”
The court ruled that the ban does not violate residents’ rights to self-defense because large-capacity gun magazines are not needed for self-defense.
Apparently, the court hasn’t been paying any damn attention to what the hell has been going on in the last month or so.
The truth is, such magazines aren’t just useful for self-defense, they can be downright vital. Mobs are showing up in various places, burning down buildings they think are involved in criminal activity. We’ve seen an untold number of riots, watched videos of people being severely beaten by these mobs.
These mobs consist of more than 10 people. Limited-capacity magazines aren’t likely to do nearly as much good as a 30-round magazine on an AR-15 or, at least, a 15-round mag in a semi-auto handgun. If you have a lot of hostiles coming toward you, you need every advantage you can get.
But a court with probably zero expertise on firearms, self-defense, or any similar subject has decided what you need and what you don’t.
This is why the Second Amendment was written as “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It’s because it’s not up to the state–and the courts are agents of the state–to determine what you need and what you don’t need to defend your home. Your circumstances, environment, and numerous other factors have to be considered.
The court didn’t care about that. They, as typical nanny-state judges, figure they know better than you do about what you need and what you don’t, despite lacking any relevant expertise on the topic.
Now, people may well die because of that.
The civil unrest we see isn’t likely to go away any time soon. People impacted by this decision may well find themselves facing a mob, all without nearly enough ammunition handy to protect themselves and others.
Of course, progressives such as those on the court don’t really care about those people. They’re typically too busy making excuses for the rioters, anyway.
Blood will be on their hands, they just won’t care.