Gun Owners of America, or GOA, doesn’t like gun control. Of course, what pro-Second Amendment group does?

One in particular seems kind of stuck in their craw, and that’s magazine restrictions. After all, such restrictions make absolutely no sense. Such laws make assumptions about tactical issues that bear no resemblance to reality.

And that’s assuming they’re really about what proponents claim they’re about.

Now, GOA is asking the Supreme Court to hear a magazine ban case.

From a press release:

GOA Urges SCOTUS to Hear Challenge to Unconstitutional California Magazine Ban

WASHINGTON, D.C — On Friday, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) filed an amicus curiae brief which urges the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case involving California’s magazine ban.

“Unless anti-gun radicals like Gavin Newsom and Rob Bonta are held accountable for their blatant violations of the Second Amendment, we can expect anti-gunners in other states to enact the same kind of gun control,” Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, said.

The brief argues:

“There is a certain irony that many of the courts which now embrace the notion that Second Amendment ‘arms’ do not include those of a military nature are often the same courts which before Heller had taken the position that the Second Amendment only protected arms in the hands of those serving in state guard units – which presumably would possess and carry ‘military-style’ weapons….”

“The Second Amendment protects first and foremost the right to self-defense — not just against petty criminals, but against governments, both foreign and domestic.”

In 2021, the 9th Circuit upheld California’s ban on high-capacity magazines, despite the policy’s clear Constitutional violations. This is the third amicus curiae brief filed by GOF in this case which was brought by the California Rifle and Pistol Association.

Aside from the clear Constitutional arguments, there is evidence that banning high-capacity magazines do nothing to prevent criminals from committing crimes. According to a report published by Breitbart, Chicago banned “high-capacity” magazines in 2013, but the criminal use of those weapons rose in 2014, 2015, and 2016.

The full text of the brief can be found here.

Now, obviously, I agree. There’s nothing constitutional about restricting the amount of ammunition a firearm can carry at a given time.

Plus, there are certain realities that proponents appear to be oblivious to.

For example, a mass shooter won’t be inhibited by 10-round magazines because they have the initiative and a disarmed environment. They can reload at their leisure without any concern, much like how the Parkland killer only used 10-round magazines.

Yet for the average citizen, they don’t get to pick the nature of their armed encounters. It could just be one guy and they never need to fire, but it could also be a mob of folks wishing them and their’s harm. In that case, stopping to reload might be the opportunity one of the bad guys needs to hurt the armed citizen.

This is what we term as a “very bad thing.”

Magazine capacity restrictions don’t reduce crime. They don’t prevent mass shootings. In fact, they don’t accomplish much of anything except interfere with the right of self-defense.

As such, I join with GOA in calling for the Supreme Court to hear this case and put an end to this nonsense once and for all.