IMHO....
The 10 round capacity limitation would be a bad move for the anti-gun agenda for a number of reasons:
1. It so restrictive that it's certain that it would be temporary, sort of like a 55mph national speed limit. You just know it not going to stand. A 15 round limit might last longer, and a 20 round limit might last indefinitely.
2. It's not going to prevent many deaths. Note that in all the media frenzy quoting the number of shootings per year, we didn't hear any estimates of how many shootings there are in a year in which one bad guy fires more than 10 rounds, or how many actual injuries and deaths resulted. There were no comparisons of deaths per incident in states with capacity limits (CA,MA) to the rest of the country. (These guys don't do any homework; it's insulting.)
3. It would squander their political capital. If they could (they can't, but if they could) get a 10 round limit passed, they would be able to pass something more substantial, say a requirement for NICS checks on friend-to-friend sales at gun shows (if that's constitutional). The antis don't seem to understand that they are not just getting some folks annoyed, but making life-long enemies of something in the range of 20%-40% of the voters and taxpayers.
4. It's based on an incomplete analysis. The Tuscon shooter was stopped when changing mags, but that doesn't mean he would have been stopped after one mag if he was using 10 or 15 round mags. It takes time for bystanders to assess the situation, decide whether to flee, or seek cover, or confront the shooter. Colin Ferguson was stopped while changing mags for (I think) the third time. Plus big mags are more awkward than small ones, giving a longer reload time if only by a little.
5. It doesn't belong at the federal level. This kind of gun restriction should be a state matter. Massachusetts is not Arizona, California is not Alaska. There aren't enough resources at the federal level to spend them pursuing magazines. Most arrests where over-capacity mags would be discovered are by state and local cops. Are they going to enforce the federal law? Do the taxpayers want to pay for a federal trial for the magazine as well as the state trial for the original crime? And I may be the only one the US who cares about this, but I think it leads to double jeopardy. If you rob a store with a gun and an overcapacity mag, it should be one incident, one trial; the mag count would what's called an "included offense."
So, IMHO, the current proposal is a bad idea no matter which side you're on.
