I will look forward to some argument on this proposition. I would think that a fixed magazine would slow things down more than just limiting rounds... but then again not having such weapons would slow things down even more.

...but I'm not really confident we'll get that at the Federal level. I'd like to see Wayne LaPierre try to argue that there is a Constitutional right to a detachable magazine.

1. Like Defacto said I'd need to read the arguments for and against.
2. I don't live in California, so I don't feel that's my decision to make.

5, for example, with no private or public sale of higher capacity magazines legal. Existing magazines can be modified to reduce capacity.

...that's a big impact on the functionality of the weapon for the purpose of violence against people.

Yahoos will not line up to purchase/fondle such weapons.

Those are good things.

but I remember Ohio considered any weapon that could hold 31 rounds, 30 mag with one in the chamber a machine gun and was illegal. That might be a way to solve the high cap magazine question. Redefine guns that can hold more than 10 rounds a machine gun.

They've already developed devices such as the "bullet button" or "magazine magnet"....... to bypass the "locked" magazine button. These are legal in CA as long as they "don't remain on the rifle".

The great thing about the magnetic version........ is you can leave it on the rifle .... OR take it off (if you think the popo might be inspecting your gatt).

Or .......they can just switch to a regular magazine release in about a minute. (Illegal in CA)