With the Ninth Circuit ruling that bans on higher capacity magazines was unconstitutional, the court level a massive blow to anti-gunners in some of the most anti-gun states in the country. Hawaii, California, Oregon, and Washington all saw a sacred shibboleth of gun control come crashing down with a proverbial stroke of the pen.

Well, sorta.

You see, the stay of a previous ruling is still in effect, meaning that it’s still temporarily in effect. Yet since the judge who issued the previous ruling also issued the stay, we can expect that to lift at any given moment.

When that happens, a whole lot of happy gun owners will have a decent capacity for their firearms again.

Meanwhile, some are still pushing the idea that such magazines aren’t needed.

Days following the anniversary of one of the nation’s worst weekends of senseless bloodshed, the killing of 32 victims in mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit overturned a California ban of the very type of large-capacity magazine that facilitated the two massacres. Approved in 2016 by a healthy voter majority, Proposition 63 outlawed magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

“California’s near-categorical ban of (large-capacity magazines) strikes at the core of the Second Amendment — the right to armed self-defense,” Judge Kenneth Lee wrote for the court majority.

However, it is hard to imagine a situation in which some law-abiding gun owner would need to shoot off dozens of rounds in defense of self or others. It is a stretch to conceive of a home invasion by a horde of armed intruders, so many that a rapid-fire response would be required to ward off the threat.

How is it a stretch to conceive of “a home invasion by a horde of armed intruders” when it’s happened? I can see having a hard time conceiving of things that never happen, but this one has. Further, it doesn’t take a horde to warrant the need for more than 10 rounds. Especially since a home invasion is one of those things where it’s assumed they mean you harm, weapon or not.

For example, take this home invasion in Georgia. Three people in masks. That’s not a horde by any stretch, but that leaves you just three rounds per person, with some lucky contestant getting a fourth. While that might sound like enough, actually firing a weapon at a living being isn’t as cut and dried as the movies make it look. You see, the bad guys get a vote in what to do and it’s rarely “stand right here like a stationary target at the range.”

Damn inconsiderate of them, but what can ya do?

Of course, this author isn’t really anyone to take too seriously on the topic. Why’s that? Probably because while he goes on to discuss mass shootings, he makes an admission immediately before making a comment supporting higher-capacity magazine bans.

The Virginia Tech gunman managed to kill 32 students and faculty using two handguns accessorized with magazines capable of holding 10-15 bullets.

Even if all sales of large-capacity magazines were blocked nationwide, there are countless already in circulation for anyone determined enough to purchase one privately. But whatever the magnitude of the impact, a national sales ban would be the right thing to do symbolically and might eventually shrink the supply.

In other words, mass shooters can still kill scores of people with lower-capacity magazines, but we should still inhibit people’s natural right to self-defense to make people feel better.

Give me a break.

The truth is that such magazines have a definite role in our society. For one thing, they do allow us to fight off “hordes” that might invade our homes. They also give us enough capacity to protect our families in a real life-or-death situation.

I’m not giving that up for “symbolism” or anything else.