High capacity magazines, otherwise known as standard magazines, are just one of many peripheral attacks on the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear “Arms.”
District Judge Roger Benitez ruled that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “arms” under the U.S. Constitution, and that the California law “burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state.”
Benitez described three home invasions, two of which ended with the female victims running out of bullets.
In the third case, the pajama-clad woman with a high-capacity magazine took on three armed intruders, firing at them while simultaneously calling for help on her phone.
“She had no place to carry an extra magazine and no way to reload because her left hand held the phone with which she was still trying to call 911,” the judge wrote, saying she killed one attacker while two escaped.
The purported goal of the California law was to deter mass-shootings, but Judge Benitez called such shootings “exceedingly rare” while emphasizing the everyday robberies, rapes and murders that may be countered with firearms.
At least seven other states and 11 local governments already restrict the possession or sale of large-capacity ammunition magazines. The conflicting decisions on extended magazines may ultimately be sorted out by the U.S. Supreme Court.
At the heart of the issue is the defensive use of firearms vs the offensive use. The benefits far outweigh the risks by every measure. You cannot eliminate the risks without eliminating the rewards as well. Which is why any infringement of the right to bear arms is inevitably followed by further infringements.
The attempt to eliminate risk always eliminates benefits as well, thereby increasing risk and leading to further attempts to eliminate it. A vicious cycle feeding upon itself.