The problem is that a pre-ban standard cap magazine is, by definition, not a large capacity feeding device. The text of the law includes an opaque reference to the ban date:
But the model instructions completely skip that possibility.
Presumably any half decent defense lawyer could point out that the items the defendant was "caught" with are, *NOT* ''Large capacity feeding device'' as defined by MGL C. 140 § 121.
This would be part of the cross examination of anyone saying they were. It's a matter of evidence, not interpretation or jury instructions. Closing argument would be: "What my client possessed doesn't meet the definition in law, there's no crime here."
Presumably any half decent defense lawyer could point out that the items the defendant was "caught" with are, *NOT* ''Large capacity feeding device'' as defined by MGL C. 140 § 121.
This would be part of the cross examination of anyone saying they were. It's a matter of evidence, not interpretation or jury instructions. Closing argument would be: "What my client possessed doesn't meet the definition in law, there's no crime here."
Well just defining whether or not sometihng is an LCAFD is somewhat easier than the preban bullshit.
"Does it hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition?" etc.
Of course this starts to get fun when we work in the gray.
For example you take a 30 round AR mag. A brand new one. If I whisper the words "50 beowulf" next to it, suddenly does that mean its only a 10 round
magazine? Or if I stuff it with 10 dummy rounds... and its "full" ? is it now a 30rd AR mag?
If you, the LTC holder, don’t understand this topic fully, then why would your spouse be any better suited to understand it?
Not being snarky. I’m just wondering how the heck this comes up in spousal communication, unless both of you have LTCs and one of you is more risk-averse than the other?