Oppose a Ban on Standard Capacity Magazines Used for Self-Defense
Virginia: Oppose a Ban on Standard Capacity Magazines Used for Self-Defense
Banning standard capacity magazines does not reduce violent crime
A 1997 Department of Justice-funded study of the 10-year federal “assault weapons”ban (which included a ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition) determined that “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.”A 2004 U.S. DOJ-funded study of the federal “assault weapons” ban, determined, “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”
A 2018 Rand Corporation study that surveyed the available research on several gun control policies found “no qualifying studies showing that bans on the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines” decreased violent crime.
There is no reliable evidence that banning standard capacity magazines reduces mass shootings or mass shooting casualties
The 1997 DOJ-funded study of the federal magazine ban noted that researchers "were unable to detect any reduction" in shootings "with multiple victims in a single incident and those producing multiple bullet wounds per victim." The 2004 DOJ-funded study of the "assault weapons" ban found that "it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability to fire more than 10 shots (the current limit on magazine capacity) without reloading."
A 2016 study of mass shooting incidents published in Justice Research and Policy found,
in nearly all [large capacity magazine]-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading. Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.
The report of the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting Review Panel determined that a ban on standard capacity magazines "would have not made much difference in the incident."
Standard capacity magazines are effective and preferred for self-defense
Many of the most popular firearms in America are designed to use magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. Law enforcement officers routinely carry 15 or 17-round magazines in their duty sidearms. Law enforcement and law-abiding civilians choose these magazines for the same reasons; to best protect themselves and others from criminal violence.
A ban on standard capacity magazines would not have prevented the Virginia Beach shooting
Following the shooting, Virginia Beach Police Chief James Cervera stated,
As far as more legislation on gun issues. I’m a member of Major City Chiefs, we did publish something about a year and a half ago. I don’t think most of that would have mattered in this particular case. We do have the Second Amendment it is very stringent for our country. In this particular case, the weapons were obtained legally. Everything was done in a legal manner by this individual.
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.