Magazine Capacity Bans

This decision by a federal district judge justifies a magazine capacity ban in D.C. In it he plays word games, kicks the can down the road, ignores the very real issue of multi-man home invasions, ignores the very real involvement of the second amendment in the militia and amelioration of tyranny, misapplies Heller, and uses historical analogues that are too late to be useful (from the 1800s).
This federal district judge in Illinois seems not to like magazine capacity bans very much and himself makes arguments against them in the very case he is presiding.
Prediction: there will be split in the district courts, and in the appeals courts. So-called “assault weapon” bans (which are simply bans against semiautomatic firearms) and magazine capacity bans will end up at the supreme court because of the splits.
UPDATE: Zelman Partisans observes the following.
Oddly, Contreras cites HELLER in making that point. I can’t find that argument in HELLER, which was largely about whether non- military weapons could be regulated, and how, but there is this.
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.
Rather the opposite of Contreras’ weasel-wording, eh?
Via Ken. Yes. As I said, the ruling plays word games. I suspect those word games will come to an abrupt end at the supreme court.