Of all the stupid gun laws that have ever been written, including the one in Chicago not allowing a legal gun owner to take his weapon onto his porch, the laws restricting magazine capacity to 10 rounds are the most absurd. Where is the data proving that limiting the number of bullets in a handgun or modern home defense sporting assault rifle (used in less gun crimes than any other type of firearm) protects the public? Does someone somewhere really believe that they’re saving lives by forcing a [theoretical] mass killer to reload?
Not that the [theoretical] killer could find a high capacity magazine elsewhere like, say, the next state over. Noooo. Anyway, you gotta feel sorry for modern home defense sporting rifles who have to make do with crappy ten-round mags, a system which will disappear entirely if California, Massachusetts et al ever wake up and smelled the gunpowder.
Into the breach steps Arsenal (through their buddies at K-Var), with their new 10-round 100 percent US made 7.62×39 magazine. They’re the first US-made magazine with a steel lug insert, which creates a precision fit and ensures longevity (they won’t wear do to rubbing against the mag catch).
Arsenal assures us that “These magazines are made using the original Kalashnikov design. They are not reverse engineered and are made to the original specs.” These are by far the highest quality, low profile magazines on the market today. These magazines pass the Russian Mil-Spec drop tests. Which, as you can see, is about as scientific as you’d expect. But effective.
$29 a pop, plus S&H. Meanwhile, where’s the NRA on rolling back this ridiculous regulation?
I completely agree that a 10 round mag restriction is a misguided infringement upon the rights of law-abiding citizens. However, I need some help in filling out the argument you make in your post, Robert, because it seems to lead to a conclusion that the restriction is no big deal.
If you contend that a (theoretical) mass (Mass?) shooter won't be hampered by reloading his AK after 10 then aren't you, in effect, making the opposition's point? If it won't unduly hamper the lawless killer in the midst of a killing SPREE, then it won't unduly hamper the law abiding citizen defending themself from multiple attackers, so the law might as well remain on the books.
If your point is that an AK or AR was designed for 20-30 round mags and that these aren't "hi-capacity" but "normal" capacity or that, as I originally stated, these are misguided attempts at legislating away the tragic actions of crazy people or that such rare occurences are the price paid for the freedom of the many, that's fine. But those are all DIFFERENT points with different arguments and merits than the main point of this post.
Those are also more nebulous arguments that are judged and weighed differently by each person. However, the practical application of a 10 round vs. 30 round magazine and the consequenses of limiting capacity for the law-abiding vs. the lawless is a more concrete argument that could gain more traction in the debate if it can be made to neutralize the opposition rather than bolstering them.
Blame the Ruger letter for this debacle. Once these non-data supported ideas get fixed into policy, they are often very hard to get rid of. (And yes, I live in a 10-round max state, but I happily exploit the NY loophole that allows preban hi-cap mags.)
At least it's not Canada where the we have a 5 round limit for mags.
Comments are closed.