This Should End the ‘Hi-Cap’ Mag Ban Debate Forever!

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

William Kirk, President of Washington Gun Law, disclosed fascinating insights from the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s (NSSF) recent analysis on “high-capacity” magazines in the U.S.

The report (see below), which meticulously examined ATF data, exposes just how prevalent these magazines are in the marketplace.

While attending an event in Las Vegas, Kirk received an advanced copy of the report. Unlike other more politically active organizations, NSSF primarily focuses on supporting the firearms industry through rigorous research and advocacy.

This study leveraged ATF’s comprehensive data to estimate the number of detachable firearm magazines in the market, breaking them down by capacity, Kirk explained.

He highlighted that the NSSF’s approach involved direct surveys and independent research, ensuring robust and reliable findings.

The findings are staggering: between 1990 and 2021, approximately 963 million magazines entered the commercial market, with about 717 million of these having a capacity of more than 10 rounds.

That’s nearly three-quarters of all magazines produced during this period, Kirk noted, emphasizing the prevalence of higher-capacity magazines.

Moreover, the study found that a majority of these were rifle magazines, with a significant proportion exceeding 30 rounds.

In terms of distribution, 29% of these high-capacity magazines were sold with new firearms, while a whopping 71% were sold on the aftermarket, Kirk added.

The Full Report:

This extensive proliferation of “high-capacity” magazines underscores their common usage, challenging the notion that they are both “dangerous and unusual“—a criteria used historically to justify bans under the Second Amendment.

Kirk concluded with a critical reflection on the implications of this data for future legislative debates.

This is going to force the “Rob Bontas and the Bob Fergusons and the Kwame Raouls of the world” to “have to come up with more creative and disingenuous arguments,” Kirk said. Because the notion that they are not in common use is laughable.

This comprehensive report by NSSF not only highlights consumer preferences but also sets a factual basis for discussions around gun rights and regulations, proving once again the power of well-conducted research in shaping public policy and opinion.

*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Nicholas April 19, 2024, 10:00 am

    When he says, ‘know what the law is”, what exactly does he mean? He started out by using the word unconstitutional regarding gun control. Do you think that maybe as an attorney, this guy should know something about LAW?
    Here are a few things to consider that are stare decisis;
    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
    “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425
    What did the Founders think of acts created beyond a delegated authority? “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” Federalist 78
    The lawyers in the so-called pro-2nd community, or for that matter the community itself, want nothing to do with actually winning the fight by bringing arguments based in historical and statutory record. They use the “individual right theory” because it affords “public officials” the latitude to continually bring gun control legislation forward. More legislation, more suits in law, which adds up to more money in the pockets of lawyers and organizations.
    In case you haven’t noticed, despite the so-called victories, state legislatures and courts keep infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

    • Kane April 20, 2024, 10:22 am

      The lawyer that you are criticising is William Kirk. He makes a tremendous number of 2A related videos with a focus on the most important legal questions facing this nation today. William Kirk knows the law and the work he does is extremely important.

      • Nicholas April 20, 2024, 11:32 am

        Are you familiar with the term bad case law? That is the sum of what we see from so-called pro-2nd attorneys. I would take it that you are familiar with the Heller decision that was lauded as a victory. That decision came down in 2008. In 2023, Mr. Heller was still fighting with DC. After the recent Bruen decision, there have been a number of states that have circumvented that ruling. Why? Because the cases before the court are at best poor, and do not reach the provisions of the Constitution that REQUIRE an armed citizenry composed of able-bodied men capable of bearing arms that they themselves supply, with the stated command “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions”. How else do you protect the right, but by fulfilling the duty?
        Mr. Kirk, like almost every other pretend pro-2nd attorney operates by the directives of the state and the courts. I have dealt with enough attorneys and judges to know that most are at best rubber stamps to tyranny. I have seen enough judges lie from the bench, and enough lawyers selling out their clients.
        I have offered, as I know a couple of others who have offered, to help bring cases based on fact, not “theory”. The community wants nothing to do with the cure. There is no money in curing the problem. All the contributions, memberships, and yes video dollars comes on the never ending battle, rather than the victory.
        If you really want to learn the true purpose of the law in this area, try reading the works of Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., who has written numerous articles and books on the subject. More, in fact, than any other.

  • Jake April 19, 2024, 9:57 am

    He mentions Illinois AG Kwame Raoul. 1,100 full auto weapons, mostly I believe Glock pattern pistols with illegal conversions from CHINA have been seized in Illinois in the past year. No prosecutions except to drop charges, reduce to misdemeanors etc.
    If a traditional middle class American farts sideways they find a way to throw them in prison with no reductions, no concurrent sentences etc.
    A guy in Chicago sold four long gun and SBR full autos and a bag full of Glock full auto switches called “Giggle Switches” on the street. Federal law says 10 years, 85% served before parole for each of these items. He got six years, and if it is state time, he will literally be out in 18 months.
    Gun laws are only to control and abuse patriotic citizens, not criminals.

  • Bob April 19, 2024, 7:41 am

    Facts will never be allowed to interfere with the communists attempts to control the country! Having citizens armed gets in the way of that goal!

  • paul I'll call you what I want/1st Amendment April 16, 2024, 4:01 am

    30 round mags are standard capacity! Any attempt at a lower number is just asshole snowflake commies trying to be relevant and arbitrary!!!

  • Mark N. April 16, 2024, 1:15 am

    My reading of briefs, oral arguments, and opinions in ban states reflect that AGs and the judges are well aware of the massive number of “extended capacity magazines” in America, and that these magazines are not “dangerous and unusual” as that term was used historically in statues in the past. So they are disingenuously changing the terminology to suit their animus. They are seeking to impose a standard that such magazines can be banned if they are “dangerous OR unusual.” This newly minted phrase allows courts to ban extended capacity magazines because, though they are not unusual, it is patently obvious that they are “dangerous” (an obviously but not admittedly subjective standard) and can be banned in the public interest.

Send this to a friend