I have a question for those who believe that I, as a free citizen, do not “need” firearm magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds:
Who, other than a criminal, is more likely to have armed backup readily available?
A. A law enforcement officer (hereafter LEO)
B. A free, private citizen
In the overwhelming majority of situations, the answer is A. Law enforcement officers rarely travel alone, and almost never travel without radio communication with their brethren and sistren in the force.
That being the case, why should free citizens be denied the standard-capacity magazines that LEO carry?
Looking at the Glock page at The Font of All Human Knowledge, I see that several law enforcement agencies around the world use the compact Glock 23 as an issue sidearm. The standard magazine capacity for the Glock 23 is 13 rounds of .40 S&W. Assuming a full magazine, plus one round in the chamber, a pair of LEO would have a total of 28 rounds available before reloading. In an extreme situation, of course, one LEO could continue to fire while the partner reloaded. On the other hand, as I am a free citizen not sprinkled with the fairy dust of government authority, those arguing that I don’t “need” standard-capacity magazines might be willing to grant me the revocable privilege of having a total of 11 rounds available before reloading.
The numbers become even more lopsided if I replace the compact Glock 23 with the full-sized Glock 17 pistol, which is also mentioned on the above-linked Wikipedia page as a pistol commonly issued to law enforcement agencies. The standard magazine capacity for the Glock 17 is 17 rounds of 9x19mm. Assuming a full magazine, plus one round in the chamber, a pair of LEO would have a total of 36 rounds available before reloading.
Keeping in mind that the 9x19mm cartridge is significantly less powerful than the .40 S&W cartridge, one might logically expect some additional magazine capacity for free citizens using a less-powerful round. Sadly, anyone expecting logic to play any role in outlawing magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds would be mistaken. As best I can tell, according to those who would violate our inherent right to self-defense, a firearm chambered in .22LR with an 11-round magazine is far deadlier than a firearm chambered in .45 ACP with a 10-round magazine.
Meanwhile, in a race to the bottom, New York passed legislation this week that limits the capacity of newly-purchased magazines to a princely seven rounds. All those previously-grandfathered magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds are now verboten (remember that “revocable privilege” I mentioned above?), and must be out of the state by this time next year. To be fair, in its infinite generosity, the New York legislature has deigned to grandfather 10-round magazines, so long as New York serfs don’t load more than seven rounds into such a high-capacity magazine. I wonder how long that revocable privilege will last…?
Evidently, though, at least one Connecticut legislator believes that New York’s recent Intolerable Act is far too lenient. By way of Thirdpower over at Days of our Trailers, I bring you this masterpiece of legislation, lovingly crafted from poultry feces by State Senator Meyer. It would make it a “Class C felony” for Connecticut serfs to “purchase, sell, donate, transport, possess or use any gun except one made to fire a single round.” Note that the illustrious State Senator Meyer’s language could easily be interpreted to make it a Class C felony to own a single-shot gun that can, at some point in its existence, be reloaded to fire a second round, as such a gun is clearly not “one made to fire a single round.” Better yet, since the text of the proposed legislation uses the term “gun(s)” throughout (rather than “firearm(s),” it clearly applies to air guns, like this Crosman M4-177 Rifle. For bonus points, the linked Crosman BB/pellet gun has characteristics that make Evil Black Guns so deadly, such as a pistol grip and collapsible stock. Worse yet, its internal ammo reservoir (BB) can hold an incredibly-lethal 350 rounds. Who needs 350 shots to kill a starling?
At least the Connecticut cretin included an LEO exemption, so as to ensure that the serfs are decisively outgunned by their betters’ enforcers (although the criminals in Connecticut will, by definition, suffer no such handicap when encountering Connecticut LEO). I am amused that New York’s well-considered legislation failed to include such an exemption. If only the New York State Senate had been afforded more than 15 minutes or so between the bill’s introduction and the beginning of voting on it, someone might have noticed this issue.