A federal district court has refused to issue a preliminary injunction blocking Sunnyvale, California’s ban on magazines with more than 10 rounds. (Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2014).) A large part of the court’s rationale was that “a prohibition on possession of magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds applies only the most minor burden on the Second Amendment,” and I think that’s both correct and legally relevant.Eugene looks at both sides of the question and iterates the general caution that something that might be unwise my also be something allowed by the Constitution. Just because it is unwise doesn't make it unconstitutional.
More broadly, even if bans on magazines with more than 10 rounds are unwise, not all unwise restrictions are unconstitutional. That’s true for speech restrictions. It’s true for abortion restrictions. And I think it’s true for gun restrictions as well.I believe that the good professor is probably right, although any restrictions on gun rights go jarringly against my grain. You can go to the link above to read the whole article, but what he's saying makes sense to me. Not that I agree with it, but that it makes sense.
It is better to elect legislators who celebrate freedom and won't pass laws that restrict freedom. I note that this case is from California, a state that has enough problems that the legislature shouldn't have time to worry about such things. Better to elect legislators who expand freedom and celebrate all of the rights of Americans.