I agree with Joe, that it seems the other side is not quite so ambitious on the magazine ban front as they once were, and not routinely tout 100 round magazines as being patently ridiculous more often than speaking of hard limits. Probably smart. Most Americans don’t own 100 round magazines (even I don’t have one), but many own 11-30 round magazines.
But it’s a sharp contrast from yesteryear. I seem to recall reading that the magazine limitations were originally an idea floated by Bill Ruger, who was interested in saving the Mini-14. Ruger’s proposal was to focus on the magazine size rather than the gun, and threw a 15 round limit out there for people to chew on. The gun control crowd loved the idea. Of all the states that passed assault weapons bans, only New Jersey adopted the 15 round limit. Every other adopted ten. I heard originally, anti-gun politicians floated a 5 round limit, and 10 was the compromise.Â Now they’d be happy to ban the drum magazines. Progress.
As for Bill Ruger, the Mini-14 may have been spared, but we got an assault weapons ban and a magazine ban. It took a while for the gun community to learn there’s nothing to be gained in preemptively surrendering ground. Compromise is something you do when circumstances leave you no good option, and your choice is between getting beaten and getting killed. Compromise is not a starting position in a political struggle.