Thalia, since 1994, any newly manufactured magazine can't accept more than 10 rounds, per Federal law. Any that were manufactured prior to this time (and there are oodles) are grandfathered. Prior to that time the only limit was practical, as in how many can the firearm reasonably hold without becoming too cumbersome and unwieldy. The magazine capacity ban has done nothing to reduce crime (as expected) but it has proven to be a major hindrance to sport shooters who are forced to scour the used parts bins and other sources for "pre Clinton" mags. The only way that this bill was able to pass through Congress was with the stipulation that it would "sunset" (expire) in 10 years, and it will do so in 2003 if not renewed. My position, and I'm sure it is the NRA's as well, is that this is an unreasonable restriction with no evidence that it provides any societal benefit whatsoever, and further that it infringes upon Second Amendment freedoms.<br><br><br><br>
Let me just say though that several of my own family members do not own firearms and will not allow them in their homes for what they perceive to be moral or safety reasons. That's fine and I support everyone's right to live as they please. However, when the government attempts to dictate how *I* choose to live, and further attempts to restrict or infringe any law abiding individual's ability to defend themselves or their family from crimes of violence, then its time for a change in my view . . . .