Join the #1 community for gun owners of the Northwest
We believe the 2nd Amendment is best defended through grass-roots organization, education, and advocacy centered around individual gun owners. It is our mission to encourage, organize, and support these efforts throughout Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
Discuss firearms and all aspects of firearm ownership
Join others in organizing against anti-gun legislation
Find nearby gun shops, ranges, training, and other resources
Discover free outdoor shooting areas
Stay up to date on firearm-related events
Share photos and video with other members
...and much more!
magazine shotgun
A high-capacity magazine ban is a law which bans or otherwise restricts high-capacity magazines, detachable firearm magazines that can hold more than a certain number of rounds of ammunition. For example, in the United States, the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 included limits regarding magazines that could hold more than ten rounds. Eight U.S. states, and a number of local governments, ban or regulate magazines that they have legally defined as high-capacity. The majority of states (42) do not ban or regulate any magazines on the basis of capacity. States that do have large capacity magazine bans or restrictions typically do not apply to firearms with fixed magazines whose capacity would otherwise exceed the large capacity threshold.
The federal ban which was in effect from 1994 to 2004 defined a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition as a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Likewise, the state of California defines a large capacity magazine as "any ammunition feeding device with a capacity to accept more than 10 rounds." Such devices are commonly called high-capacity magazines. Among states with bans, the maximum capacity is 10 to 20 rounds. Several municipalities, such as New York City, restrict magazine capacity to 5 rounds for rifles and shotguns. The state of New York previously limited magazine capacity to 7 rounds, but a District Court ruled this ban to be excessive and could not "survive intermediate scrutiny".