large capacity magazine restrictions probably going to the supremes, what do you think

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think it likely that SCOTUS will strike down blanket bans based on magazine size but allow States to do limits on large magazines similar to those on automatic weapons.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In this case, it's a 10-round cap on magazines. Some here see that as an infringement upon the so-called right to self-defense. Is it the number or the cap itself that is the issue? The government has a compelling interest to set such a cap. Would a 30-round cap be okay? I want to understand some of the reasoning here.

the biggest issue, to me at least, with the 10rd limit is that many/most hand guns come standard with a magazine larger than that.  They are commonly used for lawful self defense purposes.  I'd have a problem with a 30rd limit too, but my arguments wouldn't be as good/easy.

Just because a gun maker has included a high capacity magazine as standard has no bearing on whether a magazine-size limit is constitutional.  In any case, if you need a 12 round magazine to deal with a problem you are either:
1. A bad shot who shouldn't be handling a gun outside of a practice range.
2. An indiscriminate shooter who shouldn't be trusted with a gun in the first place.
3. Dealing with multiple individuals, and thus someone who needs to be reminded that your name isn't Harry Callahan.
4. Harry Callahan, who does just fine with only 6 rounds in his .44 Magnum.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In this case, it's a 10-round cap on magazines. Some here see that as an infringement upon the so-called right to self-defense. Is it the number or the cap itself that is the issue? The government has a compelling interest to set such a cap. Would a 30-round cap be okay? I want to understand some of the reasoning here.

the biggest issue, to me at least, with the 10rd limit is that many/most hand guns come standard with a magazine larger than that.  They are commonly used for lawful self defense purposes.  I'd have a problem with a 30rd limit too, but my arguments wouldn't be as good/easy.

Just because a gun maker has included a high capacity magazine as standard has no bearing on whether a magazine-size limit is constitutional.  In any case, if you need a 12 round magazine to deal with a problem you are either:
1. A bad shot who shouldn't be handling a gun outside of a practice range.
2. An indiscriminate shooter who shouldn't be trusted with a gun in the first place.
3. Dealing with multiple individuals, and thus someone who needs to be reminded that your name isn't Harry Callahan.
4. Harry Callahan, who does just fine with only 6 rounds in his .44 Magnum.

do you think people chose how many attackers they will have to face?  If there are 3 dudes trying to come through a young lady's front door and she only has a 10rd magazine are you going to explain to her family that she wasn't Harry Callahan?  A small person can not fire a .44 Magnum, should they not be able to defend themselves the way they see fit because they can't safely fire a hand cannon with the accuracy of a fictional anti-hero?

I do think most gun fetishists vastly overestimate their ability to defend themselves with a gun. And in your fictional example, if she can't deal with three dudes with 10 rounds, I don't see where she could realistically expect either two or twenty additional rounds in a magazine to be a help. Even if she had them, by the time she could fire rounds 11 and beyond, her hypothetical home invaders would have already closed and physically overpowered her, assuming they didn't simply shoot her themselves as soon as they realized they were being shot at. And they would've have had the advantage of being prepared from the start for a violent encounter.