Such laws are always a balance. In this case, the gain in public safety would be relatively small — restricting access to a destructive technology used by killers at Aurora, Tucson, Fort Hood and Virginia Tech. But the burden on gun rights would be minimal. Defenders of high-capacity magazines argue they are more convenient at the gun range, since you can fill up a large magazine before leaving home. There is a constitutional difference between the argument "I need to defend myself from aggression" and "I'd prefer to reload less at the range."
I am open to the idea that other measures — particularly improving the capacity of the mental health system to identify people with emotional problems — should have a higher national priority. Reasonable gun laws are not a panacea. But neither are they a threat to the Constitution. They merit a debate — not driven by ideology, but by prudential judgments on public safety.
Michael Gerson's email address is email@example.com.
- Senate defeats Obama in Justice nod
- Letter: Religious freedom
- In our opinion: Maintaining balance
- Doug Robinson: Utah man discovers powerful...
- My view: Adoption legislation: Children...
- Jay Evensen: Don't mess with a great Utah...
- Sen. Ted Cruz opens 2014 CPAC with...
- Dan Liljenquist: Count My Vote: Compromise...
- Letter: Minimum Wage insufficient 63
- Has Obama's foreign policy emboldened... 62
- Jay Evensen: Obama could use a dose of... 60
- Letter: Religious freedom 37
- Obama's biggest test: Ukraine 33
- Robert Bennett: Keystone: What... 32
- Michael Gerson: The GOP needs to... 22
- Letter: Reclassify ISPs as common carriers 19