I own a Shield Plus and I am about to relocate to Massachusetts. I just learned that a magazine that carries 10+ rounds is considered a high capacity and is considered illegal to have. I know S&W offers a 9 round magazine for the Shield, but I have not seen anything for the Shield Plus. Does any one know if the 9 round Shield magazine will fit the Plus?
9 Rounds
- Thread starter RogueRN
- Start date
squidsix
Member
No no thats not quite right.
You can absolutely own 10 round magazines.
The magazine is not what is referred to as 10+1, its the pistol itself that is 10+1.
The mag holds 10, the chamber holds one more.
Legal in Mass.
You can absolutely own 10 round magazines.
The magazine is not what is referred to as 10+1, its the pistol itself that is 10+1.
The mag holds 10, the chamber holds one more.
Legal in Mass.
So what are they going to do if you only load the mag with 9 rounds?
That might be a very interresting court case ? !!
That might be a very interresting court case ? !!
SammyJoe
Member
You may be moving into the wrong state.
Regardless, good luck on your hunt.
-Sam
Regardless, good luck on your hunt.
-Sam
Bumpus13
Member
Not really. They’d likely look at it the same as a drum mag loaded with “only 9 rounds” … it’s about capacity with them, not actual usage.
However, in this case it’s a moot point anyway.
HOUSTON RICK
Member
It does not matter, you will need to sell it to pay your taxes in "Taxachusetts". Seriously, unless you are from California, Connecticut, Illinois, or New York, you may be in for a shock. Good luck!
No they don't. Its either a 7or 8 round.
Just mag block it with this... easy peasy
Smith & Wesson M&P Shield Plus Sub-Compact 9mm 10/13 Magazine Capacity Limiter
Smith & Wesson M&P Shield Plus Sub-Compact 9mm 10/13 Magazine Capacity Limiter
easy peasy... but legaleasy?
I'd like to see any legal document which states that this product can be accepted by "Massachusetts Firearms Laws" as a round limiter.
It's almost like carrying 13rds mag with 10 rounds inside....
I'd like to see any legal document which states that this product can be accepted by "Massachusetts Firearms Laws" as a round limiter.
It's almost like carrying 13rds mag with 10 rounds inside....
GerSan69
Member
easy peasy... but legaleasy?
I'd like to see any legal document which states that this product can be accepted by "Massachusetts Firearms Laws" as a round limiter.
It's almost like carrying 13rds mag with 10 rounds inside....
I can't say answer for Mass specifically, but most states with magazine laws do allow mags that are permanently altered to the state's limit.
Here's a company that makes limiters:
Magblock Products
Last edited:
Loyaljeeper
Member
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2012
- Messages
- 969
- Reaction score
- 1,416
You are going the wrong way!
This is MA law regarding capacity...
Currently, there is no precedent or clarification on the legality of using mag blocks in high capacity magazines to make them compliant.
Based on the above statement, this is the key verbiage
"(i) a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five shotgun shells;"
I would think epoxying the spring to the mag block, along with the base plate would meet this requirement. In this case, you could not take apart the mag, without possibly breaking it, or making it unusable. Also, using a pop rivet with a weld could qualify as well. Problem is, no one knows as the state won't clarify it, nor has anyone tested it as far as I know.
source: General Law - Part I, Title XX, Chapter 140, Section 121
Currently, there is no precedent or clarification on the legality of using mag blocks in high capacity magazines to make them compliant.
Based on the above statement, this is the key verbiage
"(i) a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five shotgun shells;"
I would think epoxying the spring to the mag block, along with the base plate would meet this requirement. In this case, you could not take apart the mag, without possibly breaking it, or making it unusable. Also, using a pop rivet with a weld could qualify as well. Problem is, no one knows as the state won't clarify it, nor has anyone tested it as far as I know.
source: General Law - Part I, Title XX, Chapter 140, Section 121
Last edited:
Saudade
US Veteran
No problem using Magblocks in CA when needed. People even make their own mag blocks. CA law says "permanently" modified to accept 10 rounds or less but doesn't define "permanently". As Moonpup says, epoxy, even just rivets typically suffice.
Some would argue they are not needed. You have to disassemble the mag to remove the block. Once disassembled, you no longer have a magazine, you have a bunch of parts for a 10 round magazine. If you reassemble without the block, you have "manufactured" a large capacity mag.
Also note that 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(31) no longer exists in the Federal Code due to the expiration of the Clinton AW Ban. Therefore there's no such thing as "large capacity" from a Federal perspective.
Some would argue they are not needed. You have to disassemble the mag to remove the block. Once disassembled, you no longer have a magazine, you have a bunch of parts for a 10 round magazine. If you reassemble without the block, you have "manufactured" a large capacity mag.
Also note that 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(31) no longer exists in the Federal Code due to the expiration of the Clinton AW Ban. Therefore there's no such thing as "large capacity" from a Federal perspective.
Similar threads
