|
|
Many people come to the Minnesota Arrowhead for hunting. Most of the hunting is by long guns, primarily rifles. So, I have wondered—is there support around here for any actions that would reduce the likelihood, and “success” of, mass shootings?
How can our Arrowhead and country be safer places. Revolvers, usually six-shot, are already shell limited; forget them for now. Focus on facts.
Per The Trace: “The 30-round rifle magazine has been the standard high-capacity magazine for more than three decades. These devices are used by the military and police around the world and can be found accompanying popular civilian rifles like the AR-15. Online, they can be purchased for as little as $8 apiece.
Glock pistols can hold 19 – 33 rounds. The Beta C-Mag is a 100-round capacity drum magazine. Who needs 19, 33, or 100 rounds for legitimate civilian shooting? Why do we permit the militias that attacked our Capitol to arm themselves with military-style weapons, some of which can be converted easily to automatic weapons?
Wiki says, “All of the ten jurisdictions with magazine-size limits set the maximum at 10 rounds or 15 rounds …. “In Australia, handgun magazines holding more than ten rounds as well as rifle magazines holding more than 15 rounds are heavily restricted. “ …. The constitutionality of high-capacity magazine bans has been repeatedly upheld by United States courts of appeal…” notwithstanding Second Amendment protections.
“Between 1994 and 2004, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which included a ban on high-capacity magazines, was in effect. It prohibited new magazines over 10 rounds in the United States.[2] “…. “In the wake of mass shootings in the United States in which high-capacity magazines were used, the federal Keep Americans Safe Act, which would restore the ban on new magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, passed the House Judiciary Committee in September 2019.”
The Giffords Law Center notes the obvious: “Large capacity magazines are often used in mass shootings because they allow a shooter to keep firing many more rounds before stopping or pausing to reload, increasing casualties and reducing victims’ ability to escape or intervene.”
How are 10 or 15 rounds needed for any hunting of animals other than human ones? My gut says six, the same number as most revolvers but 10 would be much better than 19, 30, 33, or 100 round magazines. If we can’t hit an animal target with six or ten bullets fired, we need to reconsider our sport, don’t we?
I can see legitimate needs for larger magazines in the hands of soldiers and law enforcement. Even if we outlaw big magazines for civilians, you don’t want to send our sentinels into battle with less firepower than enemies and criminals will sometimes have.
Supposing that limiting gun magazines is a good idea; how do we get there considering the opposition of the National Rifle Association? Here are some thoughts:
The President should consider refusing to permit the U.S. military to buy any bullets from a manufacturer who sells high-capacity magazines to civilians anywhere, at least U.S. civilians. The ammunition buying power of the military is important.
When the steel industry raised prices during the early-1960s recession, President Kennedy used a similar threat to roll back the increase. Law enforcement agencies could make a similar demand, especially if they banded together.
Some lawyers and law professors need to research the issue so the President can be confident of court support. I suspect that even the current U.S. Supreme Court would not overrule such executive action. They do not have to fear the NRA un-electing them.
Minnesota could pass its own limitation on magazine size. To do that, legislators would have to overcome NRA opposition. That the NRA is weakened lately is grounds for hope. (A national ban would be better to reduce the importation of large magazines from other states.)
Along with persuasive legal research, we need to give the legislators the correct belief that a large majority of Minnesotans support a magazine limit law AND that we will care enough to vote out legislators and senators who fail to support it. That means political organizing around the issue at every level. It especially means recruiting every hunter and shooter, including dissident NRA members, to support it. And that means seeking talking to people beyond knee-jerk liberals. Legion, VFW, and service clubs are places where such talking can take place. Shooting ranges, too.
If the Grand Marais Legion Post invites one of us to come, we must accept the chance for dialog. If they don’t call, we need to go there. And there. And there. Maybe even to Republican meetings. We should take some hunters along.
It is likely that someone else has already had some or all of these thoughts. I haven’t seen that. Maybe some energetic lawyers, legislators and people will pursue this. Maybe even the President?
Perhaps Senators Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith and Congressman Pete Stauber will be inclined to seek safer guns. Perhaps our new State Senator, Grant Hauschild will be moved to act for Minnesota kids and teachers.
Steve Aldrich is a retired Hennepin County lawyer, judge, and mediator, serving as judge from 1997-2010. He and his wife moved here in 2016. Steve was once a Junior NRA member. He likes to remember that he was a Minnesota Super Family Lawyer before being elected to the bench. Steve writes this column to learn more about his new home area and to share his learnings with others—and to indulge his curiosities. Bouquets and brickbats to the editor or stevealdrich41@gmail.com. Copyright Stephen C. Aldrich and News Herald, 2022.
Leave a Reply