The last, or latest, official word on the 2nd Amendment was the SCOTUS ruling of Heller v. Washington D.C., 2008, written by conservative Justice Alito. The court clarified that the 2A right to bear arms is both an individual right as well as for the organized "well regulated" militia. The 2A is not a free for all right, as RichG seems to suggest, where even convicted felons (like Donald J Trump) and mentally incompetent persons have the right to bear arms. Alito noted that the 2A, like anything else, is subject to reasonable regulation. The popular reference is to William O. Douglas' exception to the First Amendment of free speech; you cannot falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and subject the people there to trampling and other hazards.

The ongoing legitimate debate seems to be what regulations are "reasonable," as understood and interpreted by the SCOTUS. As in, is it reasonable to restrict ownership and possession of AR style rifles and carbines? If so, why? If not, why not? Is a 30-round magazine an inalienable right for a legal firearm not capable of fully automatic fire? (What about 80 and 100-round magazines? - they actually exist.)

Generally, I don't feel limited or affected by WA's 10-round magazine regulation - except that the Springfield 10mm pistol comes with (in other states) a 15-round magazine. There was the incident 3 years ago of a Montana elk hunter who was nearly attacked by a grizzly bear. He fired 10 of his 15 rounds before stopping that bear. I think about what if the bear was still coming after the 10th shot, and my WA legal pistol was out of ammo. (Sure, the story could be amended, and what if the bear was still coming after the 15th shot? My answer is that the bear is now on top of me, and I'm SOL.) I mention this example because it represents the only incident I know of where WA's 10-round magazine limit just might not be "reasonable."