Von, your assertion that a ban of extended-magazines is an infringement of your rights as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment does not seem to be supported by the relevant case-law.
*From US v. Miller:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
*From US v. Heller, an excerpt of what the court in Heller has to say about Miller.
We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “Ordinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
You guys have made it abundantly clear that extended-magazines are not “part of the ordinary military equipment,” and are, “typically not used for lawful purposes like self-defense.” Most, including the military, find standard-capacity magazines much more reliable and effective, and choose them over extended magazines for lawful purposes such as self-defense or sport. Just as sawed-off shotguns are not protected by the Second Amendment, neither are extended-capacity magazines.
