Well Mike, it's interesting that you know how and what I "spoonfeed" to my students. And I have stated before that not every high-marked Glock magazine is post-ban. I happen to collect Glock magazines for at least since 1992 and have a dozen or more pre-bans with high markings. As I responded to atilla, I guess you'd rather have students not be informed and end up with felonies and possible jail time. Again, excellent advice!
My point is there's a limited amount of stuff you can actually inform students with on this issue. The stupid pics people throw around, etc, most of them are based off crap being circulated around the net with no good SOA. If what Len says is correct (that glock admits to ambi cuts being past a certain date) then we have what, maybe 4 reliable data points, total, on this topic.
Further, the odds of someone getting charged, or for that matter, successfully prosecuted under S131M are laughably low. I had a superior court transcript thrown in my lap by a small flying bird that shall remain nameless, that had testimony of a LEO who seemed to have an AWB murderboner with pretty convincing testimony (let's put it this way, the LEO knew things about butler creek 22 LR mags that I didn't even know) but even in the case at hand (and I didn't get all the transcript, so I don't know exactly who it involved or how it was disposed of) I could see about 10 different ways a good attorney could carve the guy up on the stand. The bar to prosecuting someone for having a postban LCAFD is pretty
high when even a shred of doubt is introduced.
Can we even find say 3 cases where someone bought the farm on an S13!M charge? It's difficult to even look them up. A lot of these get dropped pre trial or the guy pleads out to something else which makes research of the actual details extremely difficult.
On the other hand I can look in any local newspaper and find (in relative terms) gobs of people charged with carrying without a license, CUI, OUI, unsafe storage, etc....
-Mike