In January, House Democrats tried to force the vote on the Keep Americans Safe Act, which was a fancy name for a bill that would do nothing of the sort. It was a bill that would limit magazine capacity. It didn’t go anywhere, and it was the same bill that Democrats introduced in 2022…and 2021…and 2019.
I guess they just can’t take a hint.
Especially since the bill is back.
Democrats in the United States Senate recently introduced legislation to prohibit high-capacity ammunition magazines.
On March 7, 2025, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), along with 21 other Senators, introduced The Keep Americans Safe Act.
The bill seeks to prohibit the importation, sale, manufacturing, transfer, or possession of gun magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Additionally, the bill would modify the high-capacity definition to prevent coupled or joined magazines while also authorizing a buyback program for high-capacity magazines.
“Bans on semiautomatic weapons save lives—proven by the previous ban that lowered death rates of mass shootings by 70 percent. The expiration of this ban, and the continued refusal by many of my Republican colleagues to reinstate it, is leading to preventable tragedies across our nation,” stated Kaine. “I’m proud to introduce this commonsense legislation that will once again put in place this essential safeguard to make Virginia and our nation a safer place for all.”
The bill has received support from the usual anti-gun suspects such as Brady, Giffords, Everytown, and March for Our Lives. High-capacity magazine bans are one of the proposals at the top of the gun control crowd’s wish list.
For Second Amendment activists, such magazine capacity limits infringe on the right to bear arms. Pro-gun organizations such as the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) argue that magazines holding over 10 rounds are in “common use,” thereby safeguarded by the Second Amendment. Per an NSSF study published last year, roughly 717 million magazines of this nature are in circulation across the country.
On top of that, like other forms of gun control, criminals will ignore a hypothetical high-capacity magazine ban. This will put law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage against criminals willing to inflict harm regardless of what laws are on the books. In their obsession with banning high-capacity magazines, gun controllers ignore that mass shooters often carry multiple firearms, rendering magazine capacity limits ineffective.
Let’s also note that the Parkland killer used 10-round magazines. As we see, it didn’t slow him down one bit.
We’ve also seen plenty of mass shootings with a low death toll while the killer had standard-capacity magazines.
It’s not the magazine that does anything at all except hold rounds. When there’s no armed resistance, reloading isn’t exactly the most difficult thing to manage.
Of course, the NSSF is right about how these magazines are most definitely “in common use.” There are tons of them out there and they’re used all the time. I typically have a 15-round magazine in my handgun and at least one backup mag with the same capacity nearby. I’m far from unique in that regard.
They’re all over the place.
But, to be honest, that shouldn’t matter. Under the Bruen decision, the onus is on the government to find a historic analog that shows our forefathers supported such a regulation. The time could be when the Second Amendment was ratified or when the 14th Amendment was ratified.
At the time of the Second’s ratification, repeating arms weren’t unknown, but were admittedly rare. People have long made the case that our Founding Fathers never could have envisioned where we are today.
The 14th Amendment, though, was right after the Civil War. That was when repeating arms started to come into their own. We had revolvers as common sidearms. We had the Spencer Repeating Carbine and the Henry Rifle, which Confederates “That gun you load on Sunday and shoot all week.”
And there was no move to regulate them.
Nor was there any move to regulate the Gatling Gun, which had a 40-round magazine when it was first implemented and, by 1870, had a 240-round magazine.
Yet they weren’t banned or regulated in any way.
It seems to me that it’s going to be difficult to make the claim that this fits the historical tradition of gun regulation in this country under the circumstances, so that means this bill would create an unconstitutional law.
Then again, it’s not like any of these anti-gunners really care about the Constitution at all.
Read the full article here
