New York lawmakers consider ten-round ammunition magazines a bad, bad thing. The recently enacted SAFE Act reduces the legal maximum number of cartridges (a.k.a., bullets) to seven. Come April 15, Empire State gun owner can no longer buy a ten-round magazine. Nor can he or she load a pre-ban ten-round magazine with more than seven rounds. The “thinking” behind the seven-round law is as convoluted as it is capricious . . .
If a spree killer has three less cartridges in his gun there could be three less lives lost when he starts murdering innocent children. By the same token, the measure could (in theory) limit the lethality of gang bangers, armed robbers and other n’er do wells.
Also, reloading takes time. Not much if you know what you’re doing. Hardly any, really. But lawmakers would have their constituents believe as they do (apparently) that the time a madman/criminal spends reloading is “extra” time for innocents to escape and rescuers to intervene.
Of course, that’s assuming the madman/criminal uses a magazine that only holds seven rounds. The logic also assume that he/she/they don’t fully load an illegal ten round magazine, of which there are literally millions in circulation. Or use a higher capacity magazine, of which there are literally millions in circulation.
What are the odds that three rounds will be the difference between life or death for someone on the wrong end of a madman/criminal’s gun? Slim? None? Of all the “crime fighting” measures lawmakers could have added to their unconstitutionally enacted civilian disarmament legislation the seven-round limit is easily the most absurd. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Which brings us to the first of three reasons why New York’s seven-round magazine capacity law (coming soon to a New England state near you) is good for gun rights.
1. Seven-round mag cap laws reveal the “gun control” lobby’s true intentions
Unlike New York state’s freshly minted laws regarding background checks, ammo sales registration and “assault weapons,” no one in their right mind could possibly argue that the seven-round limit is anything other than an infringement upon lawful gun owners’ Second Amendment protection.
The limit sends a clear message to millions of law-abiding gun owners: we (the state) control your guns. Not you. We decide how, when, where and why you can defend yourself, your family and your community. Not you. If we say you can only load your magazine with seven bullets, what we say goes.
As will Americans’ gun rights, eventually. The mag cap limit is a blatant—and so far successful—attempt to chip away away at American citizens’ firearms freedom until it’s gone. Which is, clearly, the mag limit backers’ plan.
2. Seven-round mag cap laws waken the sleeping giant
I’m no intellectual powerhouse. If I can figure out that a seven-round magazine limit does nothing to fight crime and everything to promote a civilian disarmament agenda so can every single gun owner in the United States. But it’s more than that.
The seven-round magazine capacity limit is literally taking bullets from their gun. It’s the government directly and capriciously reducing gun owners’ ability to defend themselves, their family and their community. And that’s pissing them off.
Sure New Yorkers (and residents of Massachusetts, Hawaii and other states) “agreed” to a ten-round magazine capacity limit. It’s just as non-sensical and a seven-round limit. But there is a point at which Americans say enough to their government. The ten-round mark is it.
To wit: at a recent meetings with the law enforcement officials tasked with implementing the SAFE Act, hundreds of NY gun owners showed up, in person, to voice their anger. Would they have made the scene if the Act was “just” about the ban on transferring modern sporting rifles in-state (including the gun owners’ progeny)? Sure.
But the seven-round mag cap limit gives New York gun owners the moral impetus to get off their asses and fight for their rights. And it places them on the moral high ground. It also shows out-of-state gun owners that the push for gun control is not about any particular type of weapon. It’s about civilian disarmament. Seven rounds? I’m not going to stand for that.
No. No they’re not.
3. Seven-round mag cap laws enable civil disobedience
Let’s say you want to protest a state or federal ban on assault weapons. What are you gonna do, show up with a modern sporting firearm on your back? If you do and get arrested all of the people who don’t own guns are going to say “Thank God they arrested that gun nut!” BUT—
If thousands of people show up at NBC with empty 30-round AR-15 magazines—an inert piece of plastic and metal—how’s that going to go down? If the cops arrest all of them that won’t look good for the government. If they don’t it will empower the gun rights movement and spark similar protests in exactly those states where gun rights are most under threat.
In short, the seven-round magazine limit law is a gift to gun rights advocates. Americans who seek to defend and extend their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms can use it to highlight the true motives of their aspiring oppressors, to beat back the efforts of unmasked gun grabbers, hoisting them by their own petard.