After the recent school shooting in Newtown CT, where 28 people were killed (20 young children) it appears U.S. society may be ready for some gun control. From 1994-2004, magazines were restricted to 10 rounds, but this Federal regulation expired with little notice.
However, despite all the noise surrounding the preservation of our 2nd Amendment rights, which neither President Obama nor Congress wish to eliminate, I have yet to hear a credible argument why any civilian requires more than 10 rounds of ammunition at the ready?
There may be a legitimate need for someone to have a magazine with 30 rounds; and if so, I would like to understand it. So please share your thoughts on reasons why we should not restrict the amount of bullets legally stored within a magazine?
One could argue that as long as State’s militias are fully armed and regulated than that is sufficient protection from the Feds. But as you likely know, SCOTUS ruled in 2008 ( District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570), that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia. Not surprisingly, a 5-4 decision, and I bet you can guess who was in the majority and who dissented.
In my humble opinion, I disagree with SCOTUS majority and feel the framers clearly intended for State militia’s to protect against totalitarianism–a legitimate concern.
Scroll to bottom of page to share your thoughts.