Fun With “High Capacity” Glock 19 Magazines by Robert Farago | Oct 25, 2012 | 19 comments facebook twitter linkedin email comments Terry says: October 25, 2012 at 17:09 Ba-Ba-Looooo! Seriously, excellent point on the absurdity of pre-ban, post-ban. As if perps care, but preaching to the choir… Reply Rob G says: October 25, 2012 at 17:13 Well done, Sir! More of these, please!! Reply Loyd says: October 25, 2012 at 17:19 The best explanation of the futility of capacity bans since the invention of the word “Duh” Reply Esoteric says: October 25, 2012 at 17:22 good video. nice drums Reply jwm says: October 25, 2012 at 17:26 There’s not a single gun control law on the books that was put there to prevent or reduce crime. They all, without exception, were put there to harass law abiding citizens enough to make them think owning a gun isn’t worth the effort it takes to legally purchase one. The more honest people you discourage from gun ownership the bigger the victory for the grabbers. Reply JOE MATAFOME says: October 25, 2012 at 17:32 I was showing some of the guys at the range the difference between the mags, and they laughed about MA’s silly hi cap mag ban. The legal mag preban will kill you just as dead as the new illegal mags. Reply Kevin says: October 25, 2012 at 18:08 Here I was hoping you were going to play the bongos with a pair of 33-round Glock magazines…misleading title… Reply Don says: October 26, 2012 at 01:11 Yeah…..lets see some bongos RF! Reply إبليس says: October 25, 2012 at 18:20 At what point does a pre-ban become a post ban? If you changed the spring and follower is it an illegal “hi-cap” magazine? Reply sanchanim says: October 25, 2012 at 19:04 I can only speak of California. The answer is no. If you owned a pre ban normal capacity magazine, and you purchase online a parts kit in order to maintain it then it is fine. To that end you can buy complete parts kits online and have them shipped anywhere. According to CA law that is fine if they are disassembled. In fact you can put them together, place a block in it to make it a ten round and that is legal. You could also just put it together and be an instant felon too. So if you are on a range and some LEO for some unknown reason decides to ask you, just STFU and they can go through your lawyer. The funny thing is you can darn well replace just about anything on a magazine and it is still legal if it was pre-ban. So basically if all you had left was a spring then you could do that. How in the heck do they prove a spring was made pre ban??? This is one of the dumbest laws we have on the books because there is really no way to enforce it. They would have to detain you to inspect it, and really unless you are arrested for a crime that probably won’t happen. Reply Anon in CT says: October 25, 2012 at 19:31 Wouldn’t you need to not replace whatever part is serialized so as to be able to prove its-pre ban status? Reply accur8one says: October 25, 2012 at 19:07 I absolutely agree, but then again, you probably already knew that. I read online someplace that a pre-ban (legal) magazine is virtually indistinguishable from a post-ban (illegal) magazine in many cases. That puts the burden of proof on the prosecution. Translation: the law is better for criminals than for law abiding citizens, which makes it a stupid law in CA or MA. In all fairness, I would likely be forced not to prosecute such an offense due to the presence of reasonable doubt. If you live in a free state, support your 2A rights. If it is at all feasible, please help us in CA, NY, and Chicago as well. Stupidity is contagious. When you consider all the anti-2A possibilities out there, it makes sense to be vigilant. Thanks again, RF. Reply Moonshine says: October 25, 2012 at 19:23 Had this conversation with my mom. My position, of course, was (and is) that capacity bans are ineffectual, arbitrary, and rather silly. Hers was that they will cause a criminal to pause in his nefarious acts, allowing the good guys to pounce. I showed her the classic “Travis Tomasie perfect reload” clip from YouTube. Her reaction was that, “Well, he’s a competetive shooter. Of course he’s fast.” Then I showed her a video of myself doing a reload, after I had been competing for just a month. Mind you, I’m (now) about half as fast as TT, and was considerably slower then. Her reaction? “Oh. I see.” Reply Chris says: October 25, 2012 at 20:42 I could understand a law that increases the penalty for using a 15 round magazine in a crime over a 10 round magazine, but it really is stupid that a person who is not breaking any other law can be arrested and imprisoned for a year over a difference of even 1 round. The law should be thrown out as an 8th Amendment violation in addition to 2nd. Reply johnfritz0 says: October 25, 2012 at 22:17 Excellent. More please. I am a fan of comparison and contrast. Reply racer88 says: October 26, 2012 at 01:23 I bought my first handgun (Glock 19) during the Clinton ban. The two 10-rd mags are sitting in the safe. I’m not sure why I’m keeping them. Since the ban sunsetted, I’ve acquired a nice collection of standard-capacity magazines. The 10-rounders seem so silly. My brother lives in MA. He can only dream of having the guns I have (not on the “approved” MA list) and the standard capacity magazines I own. Reply kb says: October 26, 2012 at 07:30 You mentioned not wanting to show your bald spot, but we all saw it when you checked your 9 o’clock. It really ain’t that bad. Nothing to be ashamed of. Reply mikeb302000 says: October 28, 2012 at 12:54 There haven’t been that many live examples of either a criminal using the high-capacity magazine to bad effect or of a self-defense shooter needing one. But the Jared Loughner story is one example that argues against your sarcasm and poo-pooing of the laws. It seems to me the criminal using one like Loughner did is much more likely than a good guy needing the 12th or 20th round to get the self-defense job done. Don’t you think? That’s why this is a good and sensible restriction. Luckily Obama’s 2nd term will probably bring back the AWB so we’ll see. Reply Robert Farago says: October 28, 2012 at 14:18 What I think and what you think is all well and good but what about the FACTS of the matter? Show me one scientific study that concludes that restricting magazine capacity has any effect on the frequency or severity of criminal activity. Don’t you think gun laws should be built on rational thought and evidence rather than opinions and conjecture? Seriously Mike. Why not do what works—what’s proven to work—rather than what sounds good or appeals to your world view? Have you even read More Guns, Less Crime? Reply Write a Comment Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email.