There’s this idea in some circles that the amount of ammunition you can carry in a magazine has some relevance in the grand scheme of things. They think magazine capacity should be restricted because then bad people who only fire a couple of times in most cases will somehow be unable to fire too many times.
Yeah, I didn’t say it made sense, only that people think that.
In Minnesota, there’s a bill seeking to limit magazine capacity to just 10 rounds, and that’s the least of it. Yet, as one lawmaker in the state notes, there are issues with the bill.
State Representative Paul Novotny, R-Elk River, says House File 2705 ‘Firearn Safety Act’ would ban all magazines over ten rounds in Minnesota. The former Sherburne County Sheriff’s Deputy says the law would require gun owners to register almost all semiautomatic firearms with their local Chief of Police or Sheriff or be charged with a gross misdemeanor. He says the bill would also require Minnesotans to turn over or destroy magazines with capacities of 10 rounds or face felony charges.
“At a time when violent crime is spiking, the elderly are robbed going to get groceries, and when law abiding members of the public are using legally carried concealed firearms to protect themselves and others from violent assaults, it is no surprise that Democrats will once again look to limit the 2nd Amendment for law-abiding Minnesotans. All while the Ramsey and Hennepin County Attorneys refuse to pursue strong punishment for those that are committing these violent crimes,” said Novotny.
Honestly, Novotny is absolutely correct.
Look, assuming you could limit criminals to just 10-round magazines exclusively–you can’t, but for the sake of argument, let’s imagine you could–that won’t stop them from committing most violent crimes. They can still rob and shoot plenty of people without any issue.
It wouldn’t even stop bad guys from committing mass shootings, either. The Parkland killer only used 10-round magazines and look at the carnage he caused. Limiting magazine capacity there wouldn’t have done a damn thing, so why would anyone think it would anywhere else?
But what you may well do with such a ban is hurt law-abiding citizens who might be faced with multiple attackers. Since gunfights are dynamic and unpredictable, the good guy is probably going to miss in many cases. If he only has 10 rounds and three attackers, he may not have enough ammo.
While he can reload, that still creates problems.
Novotny is right to oppose this kind of thing.
As for registration, that should be a non-starter in any state that professes to be part of a free nation. Gun registration does nothing except allow the state to know who has what in the eventuality that they decide to confiscate firearms.
So no, that shouldn’t happen either.
Opposing registration and magazine capacity limits are the good and right thing to do. Let’s hope that most Minnesota lawmakers agree with Novotny on this kind of thing. Let this proposal die the horrible death it deserves.