Moving to Massachusetts, running my plan/understanding by members here

[AHM]

Right here.

Its wrong. Any gun an FFL can buy, he can transfer to an instate FFL.

And that instate FFL is supposed to do what -
transfer it to another instate FFL?
Take the transitive closure,
and they still have to unload the piece on an end-user some day.

ETA: When I wrote "individual", I meant "end-user" -
explicitly not dealers (of any size). This is a sticking point; sorry.

 

[dcmdon]

You are arguing whether or not they would want to do this.

Not whether or not they can. Your previous statement was that they could not. Which is wrong.

And again, occasionally FFLs may want to transfer guns to fill holes in their inventory.

Another example. During the 2008 Obama election panic, I bought some firearms at retail from large local shops. My distributors would not even let me backorder high demand items that were in high demand. I expected these items to become in short supply and was confident I could resell them at a substantial profit after his inauguration.

I bought these firearms under my FFL. So this was an in-state dealer to dealer transfer as far as the ATF was concerned.

So again. There are no instances where a dealer CAN'T transfer to another dealer.
And there ARE instances where a dealer may choose to engage in an in-state transfer with another licensee.

I'm done. You are clearly just digging in your heels refusing to admit your error. You are obviously an intelligent person and I have a hard time believing that you can't see the distinction.

 

[drgrant]

Lol @ pedantic semantics battle sub thread into the weeds. This is like the prop 65 warning on an ATV because the battery has lead in it as if somebody is going to eat it.....

 

[drgrant]

DCMDON is right though dealers "spit swap" guns between each other all the time, especially right now. This conveys other advantages in MA as well which I'm not going to get into in public.

 

[AHM]

You are arguing whether or not they would want to do this.

Not whether or not they can. Your previous statement was that they could not. Which is wrong.

Lol @ pedantic semantics battle sub thread into the weeds. This is like the prop 65 warning on an ATV because the battery has lead in it as if somebody is going to eat it.....

It's the dollop of solder on the base of the glove box bulb that's deadly.

I'm done. You are clearly just digging in your heels refusing to admit your error. You are obviously an intelligent person and I have a hard time believing that you can't see the distinction.

I understand everything you're saying.
And none of what you're saying explains why all FFLs
should gladly buy guns they can't sell to (non-cop/)non-FFLs in-state.

Is the unstated truth that all FFLs are adept at selling iron out-of-state
via the online brokerages?

DCMDON is right though dealers "spit swap" guns between each other all the time, especially right now. This conveys other advantages in MA as well which I'm not going to get into in public.

No contest.
(Although I bet I'm only half aware of even one of the sekrit wallhacks you allude to).

The last I heard, life is hard for brick-and-mortar gun stores
because they can't afford to stock Every. Single. Brand. And. Size.
of ammo, consumable, accessory, etc. Let alone guns that are on-list.

Spoiler: Hold on there, I don't want this Rem Oil! I want Frog Lube

How many Mass FFLs deliberately convert liquid cash
into inventory that they don't have an existing buyer for,
and that they know they can't retail in-state?
(Except maybe to that odd cop.)

Some FFLs must love it (and even profit at it)
the way some stock market day traders live for the transactions.
But are most FFLs willing to take it on?


Here's two basic questions:
Q1: Can a Mass resident sell a (say) Sig Sauer 1911-22 directly to an NH FFL?

Q2: If so, will the NH FFL offer a higher price than a Mass FFL,
because the NH FFL can potentially flip the gun in his own shop?

 

[dcmdon]

I'm not going to address the obfuscation. But will answer the two direct questions.

1) A mass resident can sell any gun he wants directly to a NH FFL. Either by driving it up to NH or by shipping it to him.

2) Maybe, maybe not. There are FFLs that sell thousands of guns per year out of their basement. All on line. So if the low overhead MA dealer flips it online, he might be able to offer more than the big store front NH dealer. There really isn't a solid answer to this question. When I was a FFL in CT, I would regularly beat out large dealers on estate purchases. They were looking to make a killing on every gun. I was happy just making a very good (75%) profit. It beats the hell out of making $50 on a Glock.

 

[hpm]

My 2-cents, don't do it. You didn't say where you are coming from but just don't do it. Mass is small enough to stop short of moving into from almost anywhere. Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut or Rhode Island are all better than Mass if you like guns. Vt, NH and Me are all constitutional carry. Ct and RI have hoops to jump through but not as many as Mass. Did I say just don't do it?

If the OP has to spend 10 hours a day, 5 days a week in MA because of work AND wants to carry a gun while doing so it’s actually best to live in MA and get a LTC.
That way he can carry in VT, NH, ME and MA.
Living in one of the constitutional carry states only makes sense if one does not want to carry a gun in MA while spending a lot of time (work) in MA.

If it’s more important to own 30 round Magpuls than to be able to carry and protect yourself 24/7 then yes by all means move to one of those three states.

I keep my Magpuls at my house in Maine but wouldn’t want to miss my MA LTC as long as I have to spend a certain amount of time here in the PR of MA.

 

[AHM]

But will answer the two direct questions.

1) A mass resident can sell any gun he wants directly to a NH FFL. Either by driving it up to NH or by shipping it to him.

2) Maybe, maybe not. There are FFLs that sell thousands of guns per year out of their basement. All on line.

Thanks.
Obviously thanks for the answer #1.
And what I particularly haven't had the insight into
is how easy it is for retailers to make low-overhead interstate sales to other FFLs.
Having only high-friction/high-overhead channels would warp the market on locally off-list guns
in a way that a very popular low-friction/low-overhead channel would cure.

 

[Uzi2]

The real, functional difference is that there does not need to be a continuum of "registrations" covering the gun moving into MA or moving out of MA.

But......any gun that is listed on a "transaction" record from person to person or ffl to non ffl buyer is still defacto "registered" by make, model and serial number and the state OBTAINS the data.

So barring the few instances where a "transaction" doesn't take place, ( like moving into the state where previously owned guns are brought in by an individual as their property) the very same data is being gathered by the state in every "transaction" as it would be in a so called "registry".....minus the mandatory registration edict.

 

[Uzi2]

Thanks.
Obviously thanks for the answer #1.
And what I particularly haven't had the insight into
is how easy it is for retailers to make low-overhead interstate sales to other FFLs.
Having only high-friction/high-overhead channels would warp the market on locally off-list guns
in a way that a very popular low-friction/low-overhead channel would cure.

Please stop babbling, you make less sense with each post.

 

[AHM]

Please stop babbling, you make less sense with each post.

Why, thankew!

 

[SMASHING MACHINE]

Posted this in another thread and I feel like it’s a pertinent question to post in this thread. I’ve yet to see it fully addressed and consequently guys moving into state might be getting bad intel. Legit hoping I’m wrong:

I feel like the decisions in Commonwealth v. Conelius are being overlooked on NES. Hasn’t this changed folks ability to move in state with “large capacity firearms” under subsection (j)?


“MGL - Part I - Title XX - Chapter 140 - Section 129C - (j)
(j) Any resident of the commonwealth returning after having been absent from the commonwealth for not less than 180 consecutive days or any new resident moving into the commonwealth, with respect to any firearm, rifle or shotgun and any ammunition therefor then in his possession, for 60 days after such return or entry into the commonwealth;”

Doesn’t the Conelius ruling now effectively prevent folks from bringing in previously owned “high capacity firearms” upon their move into state? No more Glock 19’s, preban AR’s / AK’s or any semiauto rifle/shotgun that is considered “high capacity” or easily convertible to (ability to accept 10+ mags).

Hoping someone can tell me I’m wrong here, otherwise a lot of guys are getting fed bad intel.

 

[dcmdon]

But......any gun that is listed on a "transaction" record from person to person or ffl to non ffl buyer is still defacto "registered" by make, model and serial number and the state OBTAINS the data.

So barring the few instances where a "transaction" doesn't take place, ( like moving into the state where previously owned guns are brought in by an individual as their property) the very same data is being gathered by the state in every "transaction" as it would be in a so called "registry".....minus the mandatory registration edict.

But it still means that the list the state has is deeply flawed. That means that the police can not count on this list.

Not only is it missing guns that people have.

But more significantly it contains records of guns that people no longer have.
In this era of Gunbroker this is a HUUGGEEE number. That gun you shipped to a dealer out of state 5 years ago is still associated with your name.

 

[dcmdon]

Posted this in another thread and I feel like it’s a pertinent question to post in this thread. I’ve yet to see it fully addressed and consequently guys moving into state might be getting bad intel. Legit hoping I’m wrong:

I feel like the decisions in Commonwealth v. Conelius are being overlooked on NES. Hasn’t this changed folks ability to move in state with “large capacity firearms” under subsection (j)?


“MGL - Part I - Title XX - Chapter 140 - Section 129C - (j)
(j) Any resident of the commonwealth returning after having been absent from the commonwealth for not less than 180 consecutive days or any new resident moving into the commonwealth, with respect to any firearm, rifle or shotgun and any ammunition therefor then in his possession, for 60 days after such return or entry into the commonwealth;”

Doesn’t the Conelius ruling now effectively prevent folks from bringing in previously owned “high capacity firearms” upon their move into state? No more Glock 19’s, preban AR’s / AK’s or any semiauto rifle/shotgun that is considered “high capacity” or easily convertible to (ability to accept 10+ mags).

Hoping someone can tell me I’m wrong here, otherwise a lot of guys are getting fed bad intel.

You've got my attention. I'll google it and read it. But would you care to explain a bit. No citations needed. Just some thought and logic.

 

[SMASHING MACHINE]

You've got my attention. I'll google it and read it. But would you care to explain a bit. No citations needed. Just some thought and logic.

FindLaw's Appeals Court of Massachusetts case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of Appeals Court of Massachusetts decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

The above link lays it out well. I'm not a lawyer, but the sixty day exemption covered in subsection (j) appears to now NOT include "large capacity weapons". The language of "capable of accepting, or readily modifiable to accept, any detachable large capacity feeding device" makes this ruling particularly concerning. The eliminates the vast majority of semi-autos.

"''Large capacity weapon'', any firearm, rifle or shotgun: (i) that is semiautomatic with a fixed large capacity feeding device; (ii) that is semiautomatic and capable of accepting, or readily modifiable to accept, any detachable large capacity feeding device; (iii) that employs a rotating cylinder capable of accepting more than ten rounds of ammunition in a rifle or firearm and more than five shotgun shells in the case of a shotgun or firearm; or (iv) that is an assault weapon. The term ''large capacity weapon'' shall be a secondary designation and shall apply to a weapon in addition to its primary designation as a firearm, rifle or shotgun and shall not include: (i) any weapon that was manufactured in or prior to the year 1899; (ii) any weapon that operates by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action; (iii) any weapon that is a single-shot weapon; (iv) any weapon that has been modified so as to render it permanently inoperable or otherwise rendered permanently unable to be designated a large capacity weapon; or (v) any weapon that is an antique or relic, theatrical prop or other weapon that is not capable of firing a projectile and which is not intended for use as a functional weapon and cannot be readily modified through a combination of available parts into an operable large capacity weapon."

 

[AHM]

The above link lays it out well. I'm not a lawyer, but the sixty day exemption covered in subsection (j) appears to now NOT include "large capacity weapons".

Quote the solely precise text in the ruling which makes you think that.
Because nothing in the ruling make me think that.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Quote the solely precise text in the ruling which makes you think that.
Because nothing in the ruling make me think that.

Try reading the judge's ruling here: Comm v. Cornelius 78 Mass App Ct 413 (2010)

The judge correctly points out that C.140 S. 129C(j) exemption – 60 days, BUT C. 269 S. 10(m) prohibits large cap guns/mags and has no exemption for moving in with them!

 

[SMASHING MACHINE]

So what is the play for likes of OP w/this info? Lots of good lads like him would be running the gauntlet with bad intel putting themselves at risk going forward.

 

[Len-2A Training]

So what is the play for likes of OP w/this info? Lots of good lads like him would be running the gauntlet with bad intel putting themselves at risk going forward.

For the past 20+ yrs people have moved into MA, locked up their guns, took the course, filed for and received their LTC . . . and then all was well.

Those that post on NES/other social media pictures of their guns, talk about what they brought with them, etc. leave themselves open to prosecution.

 

[drgrant]

Posted this in another thread and I feel like it’s a pertinent question to post in this thread. I’ve yet to see it fully addressed and consequently guys moving into state might be getting bad intel. Legit hoping I’m wrong:

I feel like the decisions in Commonwealth v. Conelius are being overlooked on NES. Hasn’t this changed folks ability to move in state with “large capacity firearms” under subsection (j)?


“MGL - Part I - Title XX - Chapter 140 - Section 129C - (j)
(j) Any resident of the commonwealth returning after having been absent from the commonwealth for not less than 180 consecutive days or any new resident moving into the commonwealth, with respect to any firearm, rifle or shotgun and any ammunition therefor then in his possession, for 60 days after such return or entry into the commonwealth;”

Doesn’t the Conelius ruling now effectively prevent folks from bringing in previously owned “high capacity firearms” upon their move into state? No more Glock 19’s, preban AR’s / AK’s or any semiauto rifle/shotgun that is considered “high capacity” or easily convertible to (ability to accept 10+ mags).

Hoping someone can tell me I’m wrong here, otherwise a lot of guys are getting fed bad intel.

@CrackPot, @MAGAArms and myself were discussing this yesterday, It's not so much about bad intel as it is incongruence between:

A- the written law which says X
B- The pretty obvious intent and meaning of that law that is in bold for all to see, which basically is what you would think it is and supports X
C- MA marsupial/kangaroo/manatee courts applying 'Cuz it involves guns" garbage doctrine in interpreting the law and f***ing it all up in the process
and rendering a shitty decision.

That's the brief summary of Comm v Cornelius. There are too many "frontal variables" to pick in terms of "what someone should trust" WRT that
decision. Do you trust the law or the decision?

This is mass.... every other legal thing is basically...


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsOJuDX8nr4

 

[AHM]

Try reading the judge's ruling here: Comm v. Cornelius 78 Mass App Ct 413 (2010)

Done.
I presume the portion of the ruling of interest is the "answer" to "Question three".

The judge correctly points out that C.140 S. 129C(j) exemption – 60 days, BUT C. 269 S. 10(m) prohibits large cap guns/mags and has no exemption for moving in with them!

Ch. 269 §10(m) has an exemption for moving in with large cap guns:

... any person ... who knowingly has in his possession ... a large capacity weapon ... who does not possess a valid ((LTC)), except as permitted or otherwise provided under this section or chapter 140, shall be punished by imprisonment in a state prison ...​

Ch. 140 §129C:

No person ... ((without an LTC)) ... shall own or possess any firearm, rifle, shotgun or ammunition unless he has been issued ((an FID)) ... The provisions of this section shall not apply to ... (j) Any ... new resident moving into the commonwealth, with respect to any firearm, rifle or shotgun and any ammunition therefor then in his possession, for 60 days after such ... entry into the commonwealth;​

269/10 makes it illegal to possess guns off your property without any FID/LTC.

140/129C makes it illegal to possess a gun without a license,
except that this law does not apply to brand new residents.
New residents can possess any firearm/rifle/shotgun for their first 60 days of residence.

140/129C(j) is a provision in chapter 140 permitting legal possession of any gun,
which is precisely the kind of thing that 269/10(m) says suffices to exempt one from 269/10.


Note well: the ruling completely ignores the statutory text that I bolded above.
It doesn't say the bolded text is inapplicable; it doesn't mention it at all.
Perhaps because the bolded text doesn't apply to the specific criminal case
which caused the trial court to have questions about the law.

Mass. courts of all levels love ignoring inconvenient laws Because Guns.

But this case may be an analog to U.S. v. Miller, where bad case law sprang from
dull and unmotivated advocacy by dull and unmotivated defense counsel.


Don't you think that no one ever gets jacked up for merely moving in with guns
as long as they promptly apply for an LTC, and it's granted?
Any new resident menaced by the crap ruling of Commonwealth v. Cornelius
would have gotten on a prosecutor's radar for some more serious and common offense,
and it would have just been a pile-on charge.


One would have to be a fool to deliberately become a test case for this.

But for anyone who has the discipline and common sense
to keep the guns locked up until they're licensed
(as opposed to flouncing about with them in a high-crime area or at the range),
the ruling seems about as worrysome as
packing heat while riding the portion of the Green Line
which runs underneath the Common.
-----

I agree that large capacity feeding devices aren't covered,
but new residents can just leave them in a storage locker in over 40 other states
until their LTC-A is issued. (Or let anyone else with an LTC-A hold them in-state).

 

[turbolovah]

I wouldn't trust RI's Doctrine in court much either but I hear you, on paper theirs is better. What good does Castle Doctrine covering places you might be but don't own if you can't carry your gun there? And yes, inexpensive Glocks & 15 round mags are very nice to keep inside your home.

<edit> Bottom line: don't move to RI instead of MA because it's going to be better for gun ownership; they both suck, in different ways. Personally, I'll take the mag/AWB restrictions in MA and be able to carry in both states rather than have the mags and fewer AWB headaches in RI (for now) and not be able to carry in either State. Now, NH, ME, VT... those make a difference in terms of firearms freedom and a whole lot more.

How was the process for non-resident in RI?

 

[fshalor]

Hi all,

I’m moving to Massachusetts soon. I tried to figure all this crap out myself, and I just wanted to run it by folks here. I think I’ve got it figured out, as I’ve been reading a lot, here and in other places. I have a number of handguns, but they are all single-stack handguns with magazine capacities of 10 or lower. I have a lever-action hunting rifle that holds 3 rounds in the magazines. I also have a BCM 20” AR15 (fixed stock, threaded barrel with A2 flash hider, no bayonet lug) and a bunch of recent-manufacture 30-round magazines.

If I’ve understood correctly, I’m good to go on the lever gun, handguns, and handgun magazines because the “handgun compliance” issue only affects dealers trying to sell/transfer – and does not affect me bringing already-owned handguns into the state – but the AR will be a problem. I will need to have the AR15 barrel either pinned and welded or soldered with a “brake,” or cut and recrowned below the threads, in order for the AR to not violate the AWB because at that point, the only “bad” thing about the gun will be the pistol grip, and an AR needs two “bad” things to count as an Assault Weapon in Massachusetts. And then I’ll have to leave my 30-round mags outside of Mass and buy 10-rounders (or pre-ban 30-rounders… if any even still exist for purchase since this “crisis” caused a firearms-related shortage).

Is all that correct?

I’ve already taken a Massachusetts approved class to apply for an LTC (so I know about the “under your immediate control” laws, storage laws, etc.).

My plan is to move to Mass with all my guns in tow, apply for the LTC immediately once I’ve established residency, and – if I’ve understood everything correctly – if I get it in 60 days of the date I established residency, then I will be good to go and will not have to register any of my guns. If, however, I don’t get it within 60 days, I have to get the guns out of Mass, register them, and then bring them back in once they are registered.

Does all that sound right?

Exactly what I learned here on NES when I moved to MA in 2010.

Which is why the caution. Stop. Don't. Go somewhere else!
K. Now that the important warning is out of the way..... Welcome to NES. And welcome to MA. But try real hard to help change it for the better.

Also.. watch you knife lengths. BPD is pretty awesome, but one of their dudes almost jacked me up for a pocket knife

I happened to be able to say I had opened a box for work that morning. And got off. Side thing was he bought the same knife and proudly showed it off a wee later (Spyderco Sage ).

 

[fshalor]

And the difference is???

Everything.

 

[AHM]

But this case may be an analog to U.S. v. Miller, where bad case law sprang from
dull and unmotivated advocacy by dull and unmotivated defense counsel.

(Thanks to any readers who power through that post, for their consideration).

Some additional points:

1. I concede that talk is cheap, and MLTPLIMITSAEW (only).
2. Comm v. Cornelius does not address the order in which laws were passed/amended. One of the canons of statutory interpretation is that when two statutes conflict, the one enacted last prevails. (I don't know which statutes came first, but win or lose -) the absence of this analysis from the ruling is a blot on the work.
3. Comm v. Cornelius does not address the fact that one part of Ch. 269 §10(m) refers very specifically to §131 and §131F of Ch. 140, while another part refers merely to Ch. 140. If 269/10(m) was intended to only immunize brand new residents owning FID-class guns, as opposed to brand new residents owning LTC-A-class guns, then it would have referred to specific sections of Ch. 140 instead of the whole chapter. Another canon of statutory analysis is that in construing an ambiguous criminal statute, the court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant. The absence of this analysis from the ruling is also a blot on the work.
4. I don't know who normally does the heavy lifting in the Court of Appeals for Hampshire County, but many appellate courts assign research and composition to law clerks, and the judges only review the final product in a cursory fashion. They may be particularly incurious if the clerk reaches the conclusion that the judge expects (or demanded). If one might be suspicious that some mid-level court judge might not be a gushing fount of knowledge and insight about PRM gun laws, it's a safe bet that their clerks might know even less.

 

[rikercd]

Here is the only thing INCORRECT in what you stated.



MA PDs take their sweet time and it's pretty rare to get a LTC within the 40 days (MGL) or even 60 days. NOTHING in MGL requires you to move/remove the guns once you move in while waiting however long it takes the PD to get off their ass and issue your LTC. Just keep them locked up until you get the LTC in hand, don't move them anywhere, don't ever register them either. You are within the law, even if the PD isn't.

Sorry to hear that you moving to the asylum. Good luck.

Second this one. When I moved out here, I called the LEO that handles licensing in the town I was moving to and he told me basically exactly this.
Lock them up, and don't touch them until you're licensed. If you have to move places before you're licensed, I'd probably just try and get a trusted someone to do it for you or store them until you're good to go.

FWIW, my licensing took approximately 4 months from fingerprints to issue. The process started before COVID, but was in processing while the lockdowns were in effect and towns were not processing LTCs. Strap in and get ready to wait.

 

[GVT1967]

Well, I've been living in Massachusetts since I last posted, and everything is fine. I had my AR cut and recrowned and finally got to the range today to do some ballistic work. The cut and recrown job lost me 55 FPS, which was expected, given that the gunsmith cut below the threads, so about 1". Still shoots like a dream and still accurate with my ammo.

At least so far, living here hasn't been too onerous. I carry everywhere I am legally able to carry, and I was able to transfer the pistol in question to my cousin via the transfer site no problem. I personally am perfectly happy with the assortment of guns available to me in Mass (I can absolutely "take care of business" with an AR and 10-round magazines, in my opinion. Same goes for a 1911 with 8-round magazines).

Hopefully I will never have to test this state's treatment of responsible gun owners who have the terrible misfortune of being involved in firearms-related incidents, but I try to be the gray man and avoid living dangerously, anyway. I keep hearing from longtime residents about some place called "Holyoke" that is far from here, but they make it sound like Afghanistan or Transylvania. I think if I live my normal way and avoid places like that, I should be fine.

 

[miniion]

Well, I've been living in Massachusetts since I last posted, and everything is fine. I had my AR cut and recrowned and finally got to the range today to do some ballistic work. The cut and recrown job lost me 55 FPS, which was expected, given that the gunsmith cut below the threads, so about 1". Still shoots like a dream and still accurate with my ammo.

At least so far, living here hasn't been too onerous. I carry everywhere I am legally able to carry, and I was able to transfer the pistol in question to my cousin via the transfer site no problem. I personally am perfectly happy with the assortment of guns available to me in Mass (I can absolutely "take care of business" with an AR and 10-round magazines, in my opinion. Same goes for a 1911 with 8-round magazines).

Hopefully I will never have to test this state's treatment of responsible gun owners who have the terrible misfortune of being involved in firearms-related incidents, but I try to be the gray man and avoid living dangerously, anyway. I keep hearing from longtime residents about some place called "Holyoke" that is far from here, but they make it sound like Afghanistan or Transylvania. I think if I live my normal way and avoid places like that, I should be fine.

Transilvania is extremely quiet and rural, I can assure you

 

[GVT1967]

I was talking about the monsters in the night, vampires, werewolves, etc. Some of the things I hear about Holyoke.

 

[dcmdon]

At least so far, living here hasn't been too onerous. I carry everywhere I am legally able to carry, and I was able to transfer the pistol in question to my cousin via the transfer site no problem. I personally am perfectly happy with the assortment of guns available to me in Mass (I can absolutely "take care of business" with an AR and 10-round magazines, in my opinion. Same goes for a 1911 with 8-round magazines).

The vast majority of MA gun laws can be LAWFULLY circumvented with the judicious application of money.

The more money you throw at the problem, more "rights" you can buy back.

You could have rather than cutting your barrel simply replaced the FH with a brake and had it blind pinned.
You could have also purchased a pre-ban lower for ~$1400 and moved everything over to that, as-is.

You can buy pre-ban AR mags in standard capacities if you would like.
You can buy pre-ban Glock mags in standard capacities if you prefer.

Don