matt said:
This may be a stupid question, but what if you put the equivilent of a shotgun magazine plug in teh bottom of your magazine? Or had an extra long follower that took up the space of the "extra" rounds? I don't think anyone commercially makes such a thing, but it seems it would render it "low cap", and you'd be able to hold on to your evil "high cap" components in case you were to move back to a reasonable state.
What do you think?
Doesn't sound legal in this state...
"“Large capacity feeding device”, (i) a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting,
or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five shotgun shells; or (ii) a large capacity ammunition feeding device as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(31) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994. The term “large capacity feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with,.22 caliber ammunition".
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-121.htm
From Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(31)...
" (b) DEFINITION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE- Section 921(a) of such title, as amended by section 2(b) of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(31) The term `large capacity ammunition feeding device'--
`(A) means--
`(i) a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of,
or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; and
`(ii) any combination of parts from which a device described in clause (i) can be assembled; but..."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c103:1:./temp/~c103EtLS5A::
One other thing worth mentioning...
Under the 94 federal AWB, if any 'hicap magazine or feeding device' lacked any markings, the burden of proof is on the Government to show that the items are illegally possessed...
"(4) If a person charged with violating paragraph (1) asserts that paragraph (1) does not apply to such person because of paragraph (2) or (3), the Government shall have the burden of proof to show that such paragraph (1) applies to such person. The lack of a serial number as described in section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, shall be a presumption that the large capacity ammunition feeding device is not subject to the prohibition of possession in paragraph (1)."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c103:1:./temp/~c103Fbz9vo:e650830:
I have no idea wheter or not that would have any standing or application in a MA court of law.