Linked belts in excess of 10 rounds were considered "high capacity ammunition feeding devices" and it was technically illegal to link more than 10 during the AWB.Fangs wrote:That is awesome, but are there any practically concealable belt-fed handguns?RPB wrote:I just read the best comment ........
http://neighbors.denverpost.com/viewtop ... 5#p1784165" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Also he posted same at
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_17057662?source=bb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"This is why I went to belt-fed weapons a few years back. No clips OR magazines."
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Proposal to ban high-cap mags with NO GRANDFATHERING”
- Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:26 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Proposal to ban high-cap mags with NO GRANDFATHERING
- Replies: 40
- Views: 4048
Re: Proposal to ban high-cap mags with NO GRANDFATHERING
- Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:58 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Proposal to ban high-cap mags with NO GRANDFATHERING
- Replies: 40
- Views: 4048
Re: Proposal to ban high-cap mags with NO GRANDFATHERING
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/12/c ... tml?hpt=C1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Actually, I'm pretty sure this is wrong. New York State ban was a mirror of the US AWB, but with no expiration. NYC may be the exception.Incidentally, it is important that this time the ban go further than the 1994 assault weapons ban. That law had a giant loophole -- it grandfathered all existing large-capacity magazines, and there were millions in circulation at the time in the United States (or that could be imported from Eastern Europe). This time, we would hope for a flat ban on transfer or possession, such as the one that exists, say, in New York state.