It makes me scratch my head because detachable magazines are required for many AR-15-style rifles, and Bruen stated that the government has the burden of proof on whether or not there was historical precedent on the gun control law being challenged. Plus, to me, it doesn't matter whether or not magazines existed in 1791 or 1868, the conduct is in question because the idea of magazines are to carry multiple rounds of ammunition for a firearm at a time. On top of that, the bans on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are the mere concept of rationing ammunition for gun owners, which was never before done either around 1791 or 1868. I've not found any law that said gun owners can't have more than 10 rounds of ammunition in their household or place of business.To be fair, the plaintiffs did not really present a strong rebuttal as to why mags are not arms. Most of the time, rulings like these can be traced to poorly argued cases. Bruen is not going to stop rulings like this.