NSSF Addresses Proposed Magazine Ban in Maine

Maine was a weirdly pro-gun state despite its profoundly Democratic leanings. Most blue states favor restrictive gun measures, but Maine didn’t. Not for a long time.

Then Lewiston happened, and everything started collapsing.

It’s not quite to the point of mimicking New York or California just yet, but they did pass gun control and, it seems, they’re considering more. In particular, a magazine ban.

Over at the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Jake McGuigan offered some thoughts on that.

Maine and New Hampshire are cut off from the rest of the country by several states that already impose strict gun control regulations limiting magazine capacity – a restriction on law-abiding Americans that criminals readily ignore. Vermont, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New Jersey all have magazine capacity limits and it could be that Maine joins the rest and leaves New Hampshire all by itself.

All told, 14 states and the District of Columbia restrict the number of rounds allowed to be in a firearm’s magazine – commonly to just 10 rounds. Maine could join that group if gun control activists in the Pine Tree State are successful in their efforts to pass LD 1109.

First Step Hearing

The Maine state House of Representatives Judiciary Committee debated LD 1109 in a hearing, and dozens of supporters and opponents showed up make their voices heard. Hundreds of Maine residents submitted testimony. The magazine restriction bill has co-sponsorships from six Democrats and would make the possession, sale or purchase of any “large-capacity ammunition feeding device” illegal. This includes any device, such as a magazine, that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition or that can be “easily” modified to hold over 10 rounds. Law-abiding gun owners and Second Amendment supporters are already aware that standard capacity handgun magazines hold up to 17 rounds and standard capacity rifle magazines can hold up to 30 rounds of ammunition. NSSF research estimates there are 717,900,000 of these magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds in circulation since 2021.

Now, let’s understand that with these kinds of numbers, it’s hard to argue that these magazines aren’t “in common use,” as the courts would phrase it. That shouldn’t matter. It should be a slam dunk that these restrictions are wrong based purely on the fact that the Second Amendment says “…shall not be infringed.” 

Unfortunately, it does. That’s not the standard the courts have been told to accept, which is a shame.

Instead, weapons and necessary accessories that are “in common use”–and yes, this includes magazines–are supposed to be left alone. Sure, this leads some things out in the cold, but standard capacity magazines aren’t one of them.

Some folks offered up arguments against the proposal:

Arguing against the ban, Maine resident Glenn Gisel pointed out the double absurdity of the proposal. His standard capacity magazine – which would be outlawed under the new magazine ban proposal – saved his life during a violent road rage incident.

“Maine is continuously rated the safest state in the nation, and it’s not a coincidence that Maine also has very liberal gun laws, and limiting magazine capacities only undermines the ability of lawful citizens to defend themselves,” he told legislators.

Other residents offered criticism of the proposal, too.

“With no proven benefits, legislation arbitrarily limiting the capacity of magazines places an undue burden on law-abiding citizens. It requires responsible firearm owners to purchase additional and expensive equipment for their firearms to be operational and comply with legislation. Elected officials should vote ought not to pass, and move on with fixing some of the real issues,” said Jeremy Burlingham.

Let’s understand that criminals will not follow this law. They’re not supposed to be carrying guns in the first place, yet they do, so a magazine ban won’t do more than inconvenience them slightly.

But law-abiding folks will comply, even if they don’t want to, because they’re law-abiding. It’s kind of part of the name and all that.

That means while a law-abiding individual is trying to defend themselves from someone who is not law-abiding, the good guy will be at a profound disadvantage. He or she may be forced to reload at a time when that could be fatal, simply because the other side doesn’t have to.

See, gun control does this with pretty much everything. The criminals ignore it, which sure, that’s something criminals do with every law and isn’t a reason not to have laws in and of themselves.

But the impact on the law-abiding and their ability to defend themselves would be sufficient reason to oppose gun control even without the constitutional arguments against it.

And since it’s also blatantly unconstitutional, well, that’s even more reason to see it die.

I just hope Maine remembers that it’s long been a pro-gun state and a very safe state, which is precisely what Gisel noted above.