Tuesday the Los Angeles City Council in a surprise move unanimously voted to ban possession of any detachable firearm magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds-- even those grandfathered a generation ago.

You see, California in 2000 passed legislation banning new mags of this type, labeling them "high capacity" although they were standard in most models such as the Glock 19 and Glock 17, but allowed those who had them to keep them.

Now, this is no more as anyone with a mag holding 10+ will have 60 days to either destroy it, turn it into police, sell it to a dealer (who can only resell it to another dealer or police), plug it or ship it out of the city.


Councilman Paul Krekorian who is also seeking to pass an ordinance requiring all firearms in the city-- except for those owned by law enforcement-- be locked up when not in use championed the move. Krekorian's logic in applying the ban was flawless from a gun control perspective.

"Today, Los Angeles took meaningful action to stop gun violence and protect our residents," said the councilman on social media. "The City Council voted unanimously to ban the possession of large capacity firearm magazines in LA that hold more than 10 rounds - the second largest city in the nation to do so.

"This action will prevent needless deaths locally and send an unmistakable message to leaders at all levels of government to step up and take action to ‪#‎stopgunviolence‬. I am proud of the work we did to ensure the safety of children and families in their homes, schools, places of worship and around the city," said Krekorian.

Word was not available from the various street gangs in the city as to if they will have their magazines all turned in to the proper authorities.

Los Angeles has been nicknamed the Gang Capital of America, with an estimated 120,000 gang members in recent studies. According to a Drug Threat Assessment by the National Drug Intelligence Center, the city was home to 1,350 documented gang ranging from Armenian Power to the Nazi Lowriders and everything in between to include violent Central American gangs like MS-13 and the good old fashioned Crips and Bloods.

Surely, even if they do not turn their magazines in, perhaps they will be courteous enough to download them to 10 rounds or less just to give the rest of us a sporting chance.

Truthfully, the only people the ban will affect are likely to be the city's lawful gun owners. Sure, you can always "lose" your standard capacity mags, or get a safety deposit box at the first bank outside of the city limits once the law goes into effect and store them for future use, but again, this will only affect lawful gun owners.

Will it, in Kerkorian's words make the city safer for the children? Does the new law instantly make all the 10+ mags in the city evaporate? Unlikely.

Will the law endure?

While the California Rifle and Pistol Association along with the National Rifle Association is promising to tie the matter up in court, they did the same for another California city, Sunnyvale, but the courts so far have sided with the city. Now, with Sunnyvale as a precedent, the fight will be all the harder.

So what does this mean for those outside of Los Angeles?

The answer to this is: a lot.

With a simple vote of room full of lawmakers, some 3.8 million Americans-- just over 1 percent-- lost the right of self-protection if their firearm holds more than an arbitrary number of bullets. What happens when crime does not decrease following this change and they decide to lower the bullet cap even more. What will the magic number be then? 7? 5? 1?

And don't pretend gun control advocates won't use this one percent example in LA to justify an attempt to pass the same laws to impact the other 99.

Stay active in your politics. Make your respectful phone calls and write your letters and emails. Check the records of your lawmakers and hold them accountable at the polls. And above all, make a plan for your magazines.

If you are an LA Glock owner, and this directly impacts you and your guns, drop your comments below. Even if you live elsewhere, what's your take?