Good page.

Is high capacity defined by the capacity to accept a >10 mag or the actual possession of such a magazine? I think it has to be the former because magazines aren’t serialized, so we’re talking about basically all semi-auto’s except for internal magazine guns with a fixed lower capacity like the M1 Garand. It’s also important to define this concretely by firearm model because it’s not very difficult to weld two magazines together and create a high capacity franken-mag. You don’t want a situation to occur where a gun that had no hi-cap mags available at the time the law was passed comes under the law some time later simply because somebody invents a high capacity magazine for it.

I’d personally also exempt semi-auto rimfire plinkers like the Browning SA 22 that only exceed the 10 round limit when specifically chambered for .22, short where the capacity rises to 12 because shorts take up less space in the tubular magazine. An extra 50 bucks and paperwork isn’t a big deal for guns like the Ruger 10/22, but I’d be against seeing such a popular rimfire plinking platform banned in certain states just because it fell under NFA status and required a Form 1.

I’d also go further and regulate ultra compact pistols and revolvers regardless of their capacity. Ultra compacts being defined as being less than 6.75 inches in length or less than 4.5 inches in height, measured with the magazine detached. The City of Los Angeles has such a law banning the sale, but not possession of these guns. I’d require such guns to be registered fall under the same $50 NFA tax stamp and application regulation to transfer. Even though these small guns are not assault weapons and aren’t associated with the high body count mass killing incidents, they’re the ones used in the majority of gun crime.