Thread by @HeathMayo

As a Texan, I’ve been thinking a lot these past few days about the El Paso victims, the terror they must’ve felt, & the pain their families are experiencing. I’ve also been reflecting on the 2A’s requirements in the context of our awful mass shooting epidemic. One thought FWIW:

I’ve hunted deer and occasionally dove out in West Texas every year since I was ten years old, when my grandpa took me deer hunting for the very first time. It’s a part of who I am & the heritage of where I’m from—and I’m grateful for the memories/lessons it has taught me.

I also know that, as a gun owner and hunter, I personally have never once used nor felt the need to use a high-capacity magazine or super high-caliber weapon. In fact, I’ve hunted full-grown whitetail with the same gun every year—this Remington .270 bolt-action rifle.

The gun has a built-in clip that holds up to five bullets. When I hunt, a bullet starts in the chamber and, if I fire a shot and need to fire another one, I have to pull the bolt back to allow the shell to release and another bullet to fill the chamber. It takes <2 seconds.

In a given sitting, I never have the chance or need to fire all five bullets. Most of the time, one shot is enough—or the deer flees. Dove hunting is a bit different. There is a need to fire multiple shots in succession—but not a ton. And reloading is still not a huge nuisance.

This is just my experience obviously, and I can’t speak for all gun owners or hunters—but I’d ask them: are high-capacity magazines really necessary to vindicate our 2A rights? Do you really need to be able to shoot more than 10 bullets before reloading?

And, before you answer, I’d ask you to consider those things in light of the evidence that high-capacity magazines have been used in roughly half of recent mass shootings & the fact that criminologists widely agree such magazines are a chief factor in elevating death tolls.

I sympathize with passions on both sides—but there are things we can do that bridge the divide. Let’s focus there. Limiting access to high-capacity magazines is a sensible step that will, at the very least, ease the public’s nerves & help save lives by allowing time to flee.

Such a restriction also doesn’t infringe on anyone’s 2A right to keep & bear arms—it only limits the tragic scope of their firepower. If someone can show me a realistic need for these things that is widespread & core to the right, I’m willing to be dissuaded—but I can’t see one.

Some good information on the statutory history and current legal status of high-capacity magazine restrictions: nytimes.com/2019/08/05/opi…

Lastly, some will argue that evil people will still get high-capacity mags if they really want them & that this restriction would only punish law-abiding citizens.

Perhaps. But, a restriction would still at least raise the price of mags & make them more difficult to procure.

Also: the 2A *is* about self-defense. But, practically, most gun owners react more viscerally to the ways restrictions would infringe on their hunting & recreation.

In any event, the arg for high-capacity mags in a self-defense context, where easy access is key, is even weaker.

It is a valid position to argue that the 2A covers the right to defend oneself against tyranny & invasion, & less so in contexts of one-off personal assault.

Still, those proponents have to confront the fact that such mags were not part of the original set of “arms”.