Everytown Tries Out New Scaremongering Description for Ammo Mags

The gun control lobby loves to come up with the scariest terms possible when it comes to guns. From labeling semi-automatic rifles “battlefield weapons of war” to describing ammunition vending machines as “automatic ammunition dispensers”, the anti-2A crowd routinely tries to rebrand arms and ammunition in ways that are designed to freak out the general public. 

Their latest attempt comes on the heels of U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn’s ruling last Friday declaring Illinois’ ban on so-called “assault weapons” (another made up phrase) and “large capacity” ammunition magazines a violation of the Second Amendment. In its response on X, Everytown for Gun Safety unveiled their latest addition to the anti-2A lexicon. 

“These weapons and accessories of war have absolutely no place on our streets or in the hands of civilians. Not only are laws prohibiting them constitutional, they are effective—and they save lives. We look forward to supporting Illinois in appealing this extreme and unfounded…

— Everytown (@Everytown) November 11, 2024

Accessories of war makes me think of earrings made out of .50 cal bullets, or a camouflage handbag that’s tough enough for the front lines but stylish enough for a night on the town. 

What Everytown labels “weapons and accessories of war” are simply commonly owned arms and magazines. How common? Well, the National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates there are more than 24 million modern sporting rifles in civilian hands; a larger figure than the number of Ford F-Series trucks on American roads. 

How about magazines that can hold more than ten rounds? Again, according to NSSF, there are more than 700 million such magazines on the civilian market. In fact, NSSF says there are far more magazines that hold more than ten rounds than mags that hold ten rounds or less. As it turns out, “large capacity” magazines (or “accessories of war”) are actually the standard, not the exception. 

In his decision, Judge McGlynn took great pains to explain that while the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle and other variants may be similar to the select-fire and and full-auto rifles used by the military, they are not the same. 

Regardless of its external appearance, the Court holds that an AR-15 is, frankly, not at all the same weapon as the M16 rifle or M4 carbine used by the United States military. First and foremost, the M4 has semiautomatic, fully automatic, and three-round burst modes of fire available; the AR-15 is only capable of semiautomatic fire. As discussed supra, this critical distinction has been noted by the Supreme Court this past term. The majority held that “a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a ‘machinegun’ because it cannot fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger.’ And, even if it could, it would not do so ‘automatically.’” Therefore, by virtue of its lack of a burst or automatic fire setting, an AR-15 categorically cannot be a machinegun.

And while the military uses magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds, McGlynn found that those same magazines are in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense among civilians. Just because a magazine or even a firearm has military utility doesn’t mean that it can or should be prohibited for civilian use. 

For magazines, every round matters in a self-defense scenario—reloading takes away significant time during which the defender can be injured or wounded. Moreover, unlike in military combat where soldiers are equipped with pockets, vests, and belts to carry spare ammunition, a defender will only have what he or she can carry. Thus, in a critical self-defense scenario, more rounds equals a higher chance of survival.

What Everytown labels “weapons and accessories of war” are simply some of the most popular and common arms in the United States used by tens of millions of Americans for lawful purposes like self-defense. If they aren’t protected by the text of the Second Amendment, then the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” are rendered moot. 

Thankfully, Judge McGlynn saw past the scaremongering of the gun control lobby and the Illinois Attorney General. Here’s hoping the Supreme Court does the same by agreeing to hear the challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called assault weapons in just a few weeks.