Cannabis News Round-Up

Oregon has 1 million pounds of unsold cannabis, and it reveals the state’s marijuana surplus problem. A new state bill could determine the future of Oregon pot industry. 24 California cities sue to stop home weed deliveries. Colorado legal pot cost has dropped, illicit grow market still booming.

Massachusetts legal pot sales sparking illicit marijuana market. New Yorkers are flocking to Massachusetts for their legal weed fix. Here’s what’s holding up the legalizing of marijuana in New York. New York lawmakers pivot to legal pot.

New Jersey Governor sets May deadline for legal weed vote. Governor Murphy‘s vow to move ahead on medical marijuana could jeopardize legal weed. Marijuana legalization could require 100 new growing sites in New Jersey. After New Jersey legalizes weed, these tech wizards want to grow tons of it here. With robots.

Connecticut legal marijuana part three. Another Connecticut legislative committee to vote on pot legalization. Connecticut Judiciary Committee pushes legalized marijuana bills forward. Keep Big Marijuana out of Connecticut.

Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania residents make their pitch for legalizing marijuana to Lieutenant Governor.

Bill legalizing recreational marijuana in Florida dies without a hearing.

Illinois is really close to legalizing marijuana … or is it? Here comes Michigan Big Marijuana and the Republican hypocrites. Marijuana advocates have hope but face hurdles as Wisconsin eyes legalization.

Attorney General calls current marijuana situation “intolerable,” indicates support for reform bill. Attorney General’s position on marijuana legalization a welcome contrast to that of his predecessor.

Governor Inslee calls for national marijuana legalization. Cory Booker says weed legalization must include justice for victims of war on drugs. Cory Gardner: Trump said he would sign pot bill.

Legal pot vs. black market a balancing act. Does legalizing marijuana help or harm Americans? Weighing the statistical evidence. Military firmly against marijuana, despite legalization trend. Bags of cash, armed guards and wary banks: The edgy life of a cannabis company CFO. Black Americans haven’t benefited from marijuana legalization. In the age of legal marijuana, some employers drop zero-tolerance drug tests.

Alex Berenson and the last anti-cannabis crusade. Pot legalization advocates exploiting public confusion about CBD and THC, Berenson says.

Legalization pushed up price of Canada pot by 17%. Israel election may determine the future of cannabis.

The Search for the Trump Tax Returns

Rep. Richard E. Neal, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has issued a formal request to IRS Commissioner Charles P. Rettig to furnish tax information pertaining to President Trump. The initial request was made on April 3.

In his April 13 letter, Neal outlines at length that the provisions of the operative statute, 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f), are “unambiguous and raise[] no complicated legal issues that warrant supervision or review by the Department of the Treasury . . . or the Department of Justice.” Further, he points out that:

It is not the proper function of the IRS, Treasury, or Justice to question or second guess the motivations of the Committee or its reasonable determinations regarding its need for the requested tax returns and return information. Indeed, the Supreme Court has consistently noted that the motivations underlying Congressional action are not to be second guessed, even by the courts. Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 509 (1975) (“The wisdom of congressional approach or methodology is not open to judicial veto.”); Watkins, 354 U.S. at 200 (“But a solution to our problem is not to be found in testing the motives of committee members for this purpose. Such is not our function.”); Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 132 (1959) (“So long as Congress acts in pursuance of its constitutional power, the Judiciary lacks authority to intervene on the basis of the motives which spurred the exercise of that power.”).

Neal could have gone further. In his law review article at 26 Tax Lawyer 103 (2015), Preventing Congressional Violations of Taxpayer Privacy, Professor George K. Yin stated that:

[An] important factor influencing Congress in 1924 was a Senate investigation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) (predecessor to the modern day Service). The onset of that investigation earlier in 1924 had been stymied by the inability of the investigating committee to examine tax returns. In addition, the Senate had approved the investigation in part because of a bitter, public feud between Treasury Secretary Mellon and Senator Couzens (R-MI) in which the former was perceived by some in Congress—probably mistakenly—to have unlawfully publicized the latter’s tax returns[.]

* * * * *

Providing Congress with direct access to the information would potentially be a way to even the score between the two branches.

Yin reports that there was a significant dispute over the question of whether the return information obtained by Congress could be publicly disclosed. That dispute continued over the years, resulting in changes to §6103(f) in 1976. He concludes that:

Congress’s failure [in 1976] to require the tax committees to sit in closed executive session when submitting information to the House and Senate should, therefore, be viewed as a conscious decision to preserve an essential outlet for public disclosures. Importantly, however, there is no evidence indicating any intention to broaden the discretion of the committees beyond that provided them in 1924. As previously described, Congress expected the tax committees to protect the confidentiality of the information and to make public disclosures only for a legitimate committee purpose.

Like, oh I don’t know, impeachment perhaps.

Posted by Stuart Levine.

The sleep of reason brings nightmares

Nothing combines Trump’s ignorance, cruelty, fecklessness and desperation like [what I suppose is] Stephen Miller’s idea of sending refugees into sanctuary cities.  It’s nature imitating art, Brers Fox and Bear throwing Brer Rabbit into the briar patch.

The way this scheme is supposed to work is that we (I live in one of those places) will be terrified at the prospect and crime will soar when it happens, so we will vote against all our Democratic officials and, I guess, form vigilante gangs and go after the refugees violently. Boy, that’ll show those luftmensch liberals and the refugees both, right?

But every assumption behind this is completely wrong. These are people who don’t want to be raped and killed, and have the courage to trek two thousand miles to protect their kids, and who trust US decency and law, and being immigrants will have lower crime rates than the native population. The idea that they are going to scare the pants off us is completely and obviously nuts. Sanctuary cities declared themselves such having lots of experience with immigrants; we know exactly what to expect, and it’s OK with us.

Aside from its viciousness and illegality, it’s hard to think of a Trump initiative that is so completely disconnected from facts and reality; not just slightly off, but totally mad.  The White House continues to plumb new depths of sick and stupid; are there any more wheels that can come off this thing?

The Gold of Pot at the End of the Rainbow

I thought that my experience with budding cannabis entrepreneurs (Bad pun. I am thoroughly ashamed of myself.) might be of some interest.

For many years, there was an upscale Kosher catering hall in Baltimore named “Blue Crest North.” The building is at the end of the block where I live. After the original owners sold the facility, including both the real estate and the catering business, it began a long decline. The new owners, in an attempt to keep the ship afloat, rented the hall out as a venue for seminars given either by a multi-level marketing organization or some sort of “invest in real estate with no money down” scheme. While walking my dogs, I would pass the building. I saw the incoming attendees to these seminars–earnest, honest, but clearly clinging to the lower edge of middle-classdom. They would walk in with seminar material and clipboards in hand, certain to take copious notes. Somehow, I knew that their efforts would come to naught.

Now, a couple of months ago I was invited by some subgroup of the University of Maryland to give a presentation at a two-day seminar on starting and operating a cannabis business. My topic was, of course, the tax aspects of selling cannabis. I previously mentioned the seminar here with a link to my speaker’s outline. In the presentation, I particularly focused on 26 U.S.C. 280E. That Code section provides as follows:

No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.

I made it clear that, in my opinion, Section 280E makes it virtually impossible to derive a significant profit operating a cannabis business. (I note that a colleague of mine claims to have clients who are making serious money in the business. I have my doubts. I think that any current profitability is due to the novelty of legal cannabis. For the reasons suggested by Mark’s analysis here, I think that any profitability is a short-term phenomenom.)

In any event, when I got to the venue I discovered that even though there was a UofMD sponsorship, the primary sponsor was a group that apparently puts on these seminars on a for-profit basis and then collects additional fees acting as a consultant to cannabis entrepreneurs. I looked at the audience. The attendees were the same people that I used to see walking into seminars given at the Blue Crest.

At the end of my presentation, one very unhappy attendee asked: “Are you saying that we cannot make money in the cannabis business?”

Well, yes.

Cannabis News Round-Up

Denver mayor says legal immigrants are being denied citizenship due to work in marijuana industry. In dangerous practice, Colorado legal marijuana is still a cash business. Turning point for legal marijuana in Colorado: Big changes in the works as state plays catchup. “Employment and Marijuana Use Among Washington State Adolescents Before and After Legalization of Retail Marijuana.” Marijuana home deliveries challenged by California cities in new lawsuit.

Michigan governor celebrates marijuana legalization in video for hash bash event. Panel suggests Michigan not set legal limit for driving with marijuana in system. Why more than 400 Michigan communities are saying no to recreational pot businesses.

“Cash is still king” in Massachusetts marijuana industry. Public safety still a concern two years after legalization of recreational marijuana in Massachusetts.New Hampshire House votes to legalize recreational marijuana. Clarendon, Vermont further prepares to outlaw marijuana sales ahead of possible state legalization.

Legalized marijuana in New York will have to wait. Cuomo vows to pass New York legal marijuana law by June. What’s next for legalization in New York? New York marijuana legalization is a critical part of criminal justice reform. New York marijuana: What to know about cannabis lobbying and political influence. The clubby, corporate marijuana market New York wants to avoid is right next door.

Is legalization still alive in New Jersey? Inside the strange, messy fight to legalize weed in New Jersey. New Jersey marijuana legalization: Make expungement fit the crime. New Jersey colleges put cannabis studies on the curriculum. Time to consider legal marijuana in Pennsylvania.

Expect delays legalizing Illinois marijuana for recreational use. Activists on both sides are pushing hard as marijuana legalization bill looms in Illinois. Polling suggests Wisconsin favors legalizing cannabis, but hurdles remain. Legalization backers to make another try in 2020 in North Dakota.

Lawmakers optimistic about new federal marijuana bill. C’mon Congress, it’s time to lighten up on pot.

2020 candidate Andrew Yang promises to legalize marijuana and pardon all non-violent drug offenders on 4/20 if he’s elected. Elizabeth Warren says bill would protect legal pot states from federal interference. Beto O’Rourke’s 2011 book on legalizing marijuana has sold about 4,000 copies. Legalizing pot is the new Democratic litmus test.

The public-health case for legalizing marijuana. Can marijuana help end the opioids crisis? More colleges adding marijuana to their study programs. Why Barneys’ high-end head shop may be the future of cannabis-related retail. Marijuana legalization sparked a return to false link between smokers and violence. Your cannabis can’t be certified organic—but now it can be kosher.

Legalization in Canada sparks rally in marijuana stocks. Mexico considering legalizing marijuana use. Marijuana legalization becomes unexpected issue in Israeli polls.

Cannabis News Round-Up

Los Angeles mayor announces possible crackdown on illegal weed shops.

Why the plan to legalize marijuana in New Jersey suddenly unraveled. New Jersey Gov. Murphy to expand medical marijuana if recreational bill not passed soon. The odor from New Jersey: That smell is a marijuana legalization process from which New York could learn a thing or two. Where New York and New Jersey stand on legalization.

New York lawmakers proclaim marijuana dead in the budget. Advocates, Cuomo disagree on status of New York marijuana legalization talks. Marijuana supporters to New York: If not now, when?

Guam lawmakers pass marijuana legalization bill.

Legalization bill clears another major hurdle in New Hampshire. New Hampshire House panel passes legalization bill, reworks tax structure. What’s next in the effort to legalize recreational marijuana in Connecticut?

Majority in Pennsylvania say marijuana should be legal. What does legalization mean for Pennsylvania? Illinois Democrats divided over legal marijuana effort. Pro-legalization group says recent studies underestimate marijuana demand in Illinois. Minnesota lawmaker wants to legalize marijuana; poll shows support. Michigan legal market will be uncompetitive with illegal dealers.

Can cannabis giants be contained? Just how high can Canada cannabis giants get in the global market?

Momentum for fixing marijuana’s banking problem is higher than ever. Social and Political Factors Associated With State-Level Legalization of Cannabis in the US. Politics of marijuana legalization: Not just red state vs. blue state.

Mexico government launches poll to ask citizens if marijuana should be legal.

Mass Incarceration and the Horror of Unlove

As I wrote in my introductory post, I’m posting on RBC because I’m hoping to derive some general insights from 10 years of working in criminal justice reform and government. I am particularly interested in thinking about mass incarceration—not only because I’ve spent most of my policy career working on this issue, but I also think it epitomizes the ways in which government, politics, and reform can go wrong. In this earlier post, I used Tocqueville’s concept of legislative instability to think about criminal justice reform’s tendency to forget and repeat its past. In this post, I want to reflect on what I think is missing from popular accounts of mass incarceration, which can hinder and even undermine criminal justice reform efforts.

I’m pretty sure that at every public event I have ever attended on criminal justice reform someone asserts that mass incarceration is reducible to racism, classism, profiteering, or some combination of the three. 

On the one hand, it would be absurd to downplay how, as the National Academy of Science puts it, the country’s “historically unprecedented and internationally unique” high rate of incarceration has focused primarily on “blacks and Hispanics, especially the poorest.”  Or how, according to the Prison Policy Initiative, an astonishing $182 billion every year flows through all levels of government in support of this system.

On the other hand, the more accounts of mass incarceration rely on an assumption that powerful groups of people created this system precisely because it enables them to oppress other people or to profit certain interests as a matter of policy, the less persuasive I find them. 

My problem is that working in criminal justice inside and outside government, I have never seen the kind of intentionality and power these accounts require. It’s not just that government generally struggles to implement policy initiatives, which makes it difficult to imagine how agencies throughout the country would be able to implement something as large as mass incarceration. It’s that I think there is also a different kind of intentionality and power at work, which popular accounts tend to obscure.

Let me try to explain what I mean through an early experience I had in Illinois government.  

At the beginning of 2015, a couple weeks after I was appointed to lead Illinois’ public safety research and grant-making agency, I went to the state capitol. The legislative session had just begun, and I wanted to meet with legislators in preparation for my agency’s upcoming appropriation hearing. As the new governor had just issued an executive order that aimed to reduce the prison population by 25% by 2025, I was also excited just to walk around the capitol. I had left my job as the head of Illinois’ only nonpartisan prison watchdog because I thought I’d be able to help drive substantial criminal justice reform. In this new position, I felt like I was about to accomplish all of the goals I had talked about as an advocate.

My legislative liaison took me around the House and Senate. Everyone seemed eager to say hello, as they were probably trying to figure out what kind of influence I was going to have in the new administration. A handful of legislators I knew joked that I came to government to empty the prisons and let all the criminals go free.  

As I was waiting outside an office for a meeting to begin, my colleague noticed a long-serving aide to one of the state’s most powerful legislators. While I had worked with many members from both parties, I had never dealt directly with this legislator or his key staff.  My colleague called the aide over and introduced us. 

“You must be the prison guy,” the aide said to me, as we shook hands.

“That’s me, I guess,” I said as I smiled, initially assuming he was joking as others had throughout the day.

The aide stared at me silently for a moment, looking mildly annoyed that he was talking to me, but also eager to convey something. 

“Let me tell you a story, prison guy,” he began. 

“I remember 15, 20 years ago, doing the budget when the Department of Corrections first went over a billion dollars. When the boss saw it, he looked up from his papers and asked, ‘How’d the DOC get to be a billion dollars?’

“I said, ‘Boss, what the fuck did you think was going to happen after all those years of increasing sentences?’”

The aide paused, as if to let me guess how the legislator replied.

“The boss went, ‘huh,’ and we then went back to the budget,” the aide concluded his story, shrugging his shoulders to imitate the legislator’s casual indifference.

The aide then looked at me with a dismissive smile and walked away. 

When I reflect on accounts that try to explain mass incarceration as an intentional strategy of oppression or profiteering, I think about this conversation. In its careless disregard not just for the size or cost of Illinois’ prison system, but for the idea of a policy-driven approach to government in general, the aide’s story exemplifies an essential aspect of the intentionality of mass incarceration. Based on my work in criminal justice reform and government, I don’t think people with political power created mass incarceration to oppress certain populations or increase prison spending, although it has had these effects. Rather I think mass incarceration has happened because people with political power have increased the use of prison at a structural level, primarily through concentrating discretion in law enforcement agencies and in prosecutors’ offices over who goes to prison and how long they are sentenced, but have never cared about the impact these laws and policies had on minorities, the poor, or budgets.  

This is important not because the intent of policymakers matters in itself, but because this essential carelessness guides how much of mass incarceration works. It generates some of its most punitive inclinations, like the tendency for elected officials to call for increases in longer mandatory prison sentences in response to crime, despite an overwhelming body of research that demonstrates mandatory minimums’ ineffectiveness. But more significantly the influence of this essential carelessness is perhaps most present in determining what’s absent: the infrastructure, coordination, oversight, and accountability—all of the capacities that intentional outcome-oriented systems need to ensure that they can achieve their goals and objectives, but which the loose constellation of agencies that constitute mass incarceration typically lack or possess in compromised forms because policymakers generally never bother to create, support, or use them.

As criminal justice reform tries to reduce our overreliance on prisons and jails, I think it’s difficult for it to comprehend this essential carelessness. Perhaps the magnitude of mass incarceration makes us want to find an intentionality behind it that in a way dignifies what it represents. It doesn’t seem right that a careless disregard for harm could be responsible for producing what the late legal scholar William Stuntz rightly calls the “harshest” justice system in “the history of democratic government.”  And so we construct a powerful and comprehensive intent from mass incarceration’s most profound effects, like the racism and classism in its severe concentration in minority and mostly poor communities or the profiteering that takes advantage of the billions of dollars that support our use of prisons. In so doing, we tend to assume that the institutions that participate in mass incarceration are more sophisticated than they are in reality. This assumption leads us to advocate for policy changes that rely on capacities that criminal justice agencies don’t necessarily have, like the infrastructure to deliver evidence-informed programming or the ability to re-invest hypothetical savings from prison reduction into rehabilitative services. Such reforms are not only unlikely to succeed. Worse, they can strengthen the grip mass incarceration has on our criminal justice system by requiring new and deeper investments in our use of prisons to support flawed implementation efforts.

More fundamentally, by not recognizing the lack of care at mass incarceration’s core, we fail to wrestle with an important aspect of how political power can shape law, policy, and governmental institutions in ways that harm people and communities. It’s not just America’s disdain for minorities and the poor, or our love of profit that we need to reckon with in mass incarceration, but also what the poet John Berryman calls “the horror of unlove.”  This is an inclination that attends the exercise of political power. What’s horrifying about it is that it leads power to carelessly disregard how its actions could harm people—not because it necessarily wants to hurt them, but because it sees them as utterly incidental to what it wants.

I don’t think the horror of unlove’s influence is well understood, though it’s endemic in law, policymaking, and government. We can see it even in current criminal justice reform efforts. For example, as I have regrettably done in my own career, advocates for criminal justice reform will often turn groups of unloved people into a means to get what they want—whether through promoting a change in the law by excluding so-called “violent offenders” from any of its potential benefits, or in garnering popular support for the idea of reform by emphasizing the need to help “non-violent” over “violent” people.  Proposals based on such distinctions like the popular non-violent/violent dichotomy are almost certain to fail, as they are rarely based on a deep analysis of the justice-involved population. But this shouldn’t surprise us. The mentality that encourages us to use unloved people is born not from a careful concern for evidence, nor a regard for potential unintended consequences, but from the seductive expediencies of political power. The lessons of mass incarceration—perhaps the greatest example of the horror of unlove in modern American history—should cause us to be wary of such strategies, if not to reject them outright.

From Time to Time

The U.S.D.C. for Alaska (per Gleason, J.) has overturned Trump’s executive order that attempted to reverse actions taken by President Obama. The Court framed the issue as follows:

This case concerns Section 12(a) of the [Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act], which provides as follows: “The President of the United States may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf.” In 2015 and 2016, President Obama issued three memoranda and one executive order withdrawing certain areas of the Outer Continental Shelf from leasing. On April 28, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13795, which purported to revoke the 2015 and 2016 withdrawals.

Slip op. at 3-4, emphasis added.

So, for at least some period, oil and gas exploration in these environmentally sensitive areas have been blocked.

Cannabis News Round-Up

Trump budget proposes loosening DC marijuana legalization restrictions.

Why the marijuana legalization vote got delayed in New Jersey. New Jersey marijuana legalization: The only sensible solution. Here are the high-powered influencers pushing for legal weed. Whoopi Goldberg urges New Jersey lawmakers to legalize weed. New Jersey pot bill gets Newark, Jersey City mayors’ last-minute nod. Legalizing weed will put New Jersey on the right side of civil rights history, Gov. Murphy says in plea for votes. New Jersey Gov. Murphy wants to legalize pot, but he hasn’t convinced the baby boomers. Legalizing marijuana won’t end the black market, says ex-leader of New Jersey State Police. New Jersey marijuana legalization: More stoned driving leads to higher taxes, prominent police chief warns. New group forms to fight New Jersey marijuana farming near schools. Stakes are high for governor as New Jersey nears vote on legalizing marijuana. New Jersey legal weed may be in trouble as lawmakers struggle to secure votes.New Jersey governor on marijuana legalization: “We’re not there yet.” New Jersey marijuana legalization: What you need to know from the legal weed hearings. With Committee votes, New Jersey legal marijuana one step closer to finally becoming law.

Legalized marijuana could be game changer for New York schools. Lawmakers weigh in on potentially legalizing recreational marijuana in New York. Is legal marijuana faltering in New York? Legalizing marijuana hits hurdles in Albany. New York marijuana legalization debate rages as opt-out movement grows. Nassau County lawmaker files marijuana opt-out measure. Social justice advocates say New York weed legalization bill falls short. New York bill to legalize marijuana dropped from proposed budget.

Lawmakers consider bills that would establish a framework for a legal marijuana industry in Connecticut. What’s in the bills that would legalize marijuana in Connecticut? Your questions are answered here. Five reasons to support marijuana legalization in Connecticut and five reasons to oppose it.

Rhode Island enlists former Colorado marijuana czar to help implement legal cannabis. Rhode Island law enforcement leaders disagree on marijuana legalization. Rhode Island lawmakers greet proposal for legal marijuana cautiously. You can’t own more than 3 pot shops in Massachusetts, but these companies are testing the limit—and bragging about it.

Pennsylvania senators release details on marijuana legalization bill. Another marijuana legalization bill to be introduced in Pennsylvania Senate.

For weed arrests in Baltimore, it’s catch-and-release season.

Illinois treasurer pushes for legal marijuana business to go from cash to banks. Medical marijuana growers can meet demand for recreational pot after Illinois legalization, study commissioned by growers says. Drugged driving deaths up in Iowa after nearby states legalize marijuana.

Recreational marijuana in Colorado: What the numbers say about health, safety and tax dollars. Gov. Hickenlooper takes more moderate stance on marijuana as fellow 2020 hopefuls seek legalization.

Head of Michigan marijuana agency says legalization could draw out-of-state users.

Beto O’Rourke was an early supporter of marijuana legalization.

The midwest is powering the marijuana legalization revolution. Support rises in all age groups for legal marijuana. Time to bank the unbanked legal marijuana industry. Can legal weed ever beat the black market? Legalized marijuana gives hiring managers a headache. Social responsibility in the marijuana industry. The morals and mechanics of marijuana legalization.

Canada legalization of marijuana offers a blueprint for the US.Canada National Cannabis Survey, fourth quarter 2018.

Same Old Shot ‘Em Up

The U.S.D.C. for the Southern District of California (per Benitez, J.) has ruled that California’s statute outlawing guns that hold more than ten rounds is unconstitutional.

I have not read the entire 86 pages of the opinion, but it seems to be based upon outdated and questionable scholarship (see footnote 7 at slip op. 3) and, rather disgustingly, suggests that German Jews could have avoided their fate at the hands of the Nazis if only they had guns (see footnote 13 at slip op. 13-14).

The decision is, at its core, an extended ideological screed rather than a judicial opinion. Just look at the first paragraph of the three paragraph footnote 33 (of a total of 69 footnotes) that begins on slip op. 22 and runs on to slip op. 23:

Artificial limits will eventually lead to disarmament. It is an insidious plan to disarm the populace and it depends on for its success a subjective standard of “necessary” lethality. It does not take the imagination of Jules Verne to predict that if all magazines over 10 rounds are somehow eliminated from California, the next mass shooting will be accomplished with guns holding only 10 rounds. To reduce gun violence, the state will close the newly christened 10-round “loophole” and use it as a justification to outlaw magazines holding more than 7 rounds. The legislature will determine that no more than 7 rounds are “necessary.” Then the next mass shooting will be accomplished with guns holding 7 rounds. To reduce the new gun violence, the state will close the 7-round “loophole” and outlaw magazines holding more than 5 rounds determining that no more than 5 rounds is “necessary.” And so it goes, until the only lawful firearm law-abiding responsible citizens will be permitted to possess is a single-shot handgun. Or perhaps, one gun, but no ammunition. Or ammunition issued only to persons deemed trustworthy.

Emphasis added.