Don't Get "Clip"d

Mopar had an intriguing suggestion for a post this week:

That whole MA mag capacity ban/preban thing still has me scratching my head.

Welcome to the club, Mopar. It's just as confusing for those of us who live here. Put on your wayback hats to 2004. George Bush was facing John F. Kerry for the presidency; the GOP was hanging on to their 10-year lead in the House and recent lead in the Senate. A landmark gun control bill was coming up for sunset, and there was very little impetus to extend it beyond the September 2004 date.

Except, of course, in various and sundry anti-gun enclaves around the country. Like Massachusetts.

Mitt Romney signed a permanent ban on so-called "Assault Weapons" in 2004 that mirrored the expiring Federal ban. The law provided little other than a vague definition:

Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

So, the definition of an "assault weapon" boils down to the federal definition set forth in 1994:

(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--

`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--

`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;

`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);

`(iv) Colt AR-15;

`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;

`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

`(vii) Steyr AUG;

`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a bayonet mount;

`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

`(v) a grenade launcher;

`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.

Figuring out which firearms are and are not legal to own in MA is pretty easy (albeit stupid). Figuring out which magazines are and are not legal to own in MA is much harder. Let's start off with the easy parts:

1. Anything with a capacity of 10 rounds or less is fine;
2. Anything with a "Law Enforcement Only" stamp is not fine;
3. Anything over 10 rounds that did not exist prior to 1994 is not fine (i.e. S&W M&P normal capacity magazines).

Anything outside of these parameters gets significantly more difficult. Take Glock, for example. The magazines they manufactured in 2005 look very similar to those manufactured in 1993. SigArms mags are very much the same. Ditto aftermarket magazines for the Ruger 10/22. There's probably hundreds of thousands of magazines available for AR-15 and AK-47 based rifles that fall into the "pre-ban" category by several decades; heck, rifles like the M1 carbine haven't had magazines made since well before the ban (not USGI at least).

To the best of my knowledge, no one in MA has been prosecuted for having a post-ban magazine. It would be a rather difficult position for a DA to push, given that finding the "born on" date for a magazine without a serial number is nigh-unto impossible. I still choose to err on the side of caution, only buying magazines with capacities exceeding 10 rounds from folks I trust and covering my posterior wherever possible. My "pre-ban" magazines certainly look like they were made over 16 years ago - there's a world of difference simply in appearance between my new 10 round Hi-Power magazine and the 65 year old 13 rounder that came with it.

That's the rub. That a magazine, a simple construct of metal (or metal and plastic) could result in me losing my freedom - and my right to own firearms for the rest of my life - is simply unconscionable. In the case of certain Smith & Wesson and Beretta .40 S&W autoloaders, the magic number is as low as 1 - full capacity magazines hold 11 rounds. In Massachusetts (and other states that retain the Federal AWB specs), that one round means the difference between a legal magazine and a felony.

In what world does that make any sense to anyone with more than two or three functioning brain cells?

That is all.