The vote on the high-capacity magazine came after Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee voted to amend a bill that would ban high-capacity ammunition magazines of more than 10-rounds to increase that limit to 15 rounds.
So reducing the standard magazine capacity by 50% should make us grateful that it wasn't reduced by 66%?
State Rep. Mike McLachlan, D-Durango, who sits on the committee, said he will offer the amendment and says that number allows citizens to protect themselves.
"Fifteen is a reasonable number and this is what I'm going to ask in my amendment," McLachlan said.
Who are you to determine how much ammunition is a 'reasonable number'? Criminals and persons intent on killing you are not reasonable. It might take 16 rounds to put down multiple assailants or 30 rounds! Where do you get off pulling that number arbitrarily out of your collective ass and calling it 'reasonable'?
In its current form, a person who already owns a magazine that could hold more than 10 rounds or five shells when the bill becomes effective July 1 could still legally own it but would have to maintain continuous possession of it.
And how will they determine that a person just didn't drive over to Wyoming and buy a bunch of 30 round Pmags after July 1st? How are they going to verify you owned it before then?
When it goes up for vote, with a Democratic majority in both houses, it doesn't look good.
Read the crap here.