Should the citizens of San Francisco feel safer today because their city approved a measure to confiscate all 10-plus round magazines? Or should the criminals feel safer?
On October 29th the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously approved an ordinance that places a confiscatory ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.
Thirteen years ago California had already voted to ban the sale, transfer, or purchase of 10-plus round magazines. But if a gun owner already owned a 10-plus magazine before the law was created he was allowed to keep it.
But thanks to this new decision by the city of San Francisco the confiscation process has begun. Any San Francisco resident in possession of one of these dangerous “high capacity” magazines will have 90 days to turn them over to police, sell them out of state, or completely destroy them so they are inoperable. Residents who do not comply with this confiscation order will be charged with a misdemeanor.
“While not a panacea, this legislation provides law enforcement with more tools to continue to address gun violence and also continues to strengthen our city’s strong stance on gun regulation,” the bill’s sponsor, Supervisor Malia Cohen, told the San Francisco Chronicle.
Of course law enforcement will be exempt from this law since San Francisco believes they are the only ones capable of handling more than 10 bullets in their guns.
Cohen has a history of being a radical gun control supporter and has written other ordinances in the past that included a ban on hollow point bullets and another that required police to be notified if large amounts of ammo were purchased.
And don’t think for a second that anti-gunners are satisfied with laws like this. For them it’s just the beginning.
“Banning assault rifles only scratches the surface,” Cohen also said. “We need to … be better at addressing mental health concerns if we really want to solve the problem.”
Even the Supreme Court has made clear that firearms and accessories that are owned by law abiding citizens and in common use are protected by the constitution and the 2nd amendment. The NRA has stated that it is ready to file a lawsuit and go to battle against California’s unconstitutional laws.
“Banning ammunition magazines holding 10 or more rounds … plainly conflicts with the Second Amendment,” the NRA stated in a press release.
I am willing to bet that most of our readers who actually own guns also own a gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. This is not uncommon. In fact, when I was first shopping around for my first gun I chose a handgun that could hold as many rounds as possible. After all, what homeowner after having his house broken into is going to regret having too many rounds with which to protect his family?