Before I hand it over to Ms. Zaccour, I would like to continue the discussion on that, Mr. Price.
One of the loopholes that I also see is the wording of the G‑4 amendment, which stated that the firearm had to be designed to accept a magazine with five or more rounds. The bill says nothing about firearms that are capable of accepting magazines with more bullets even though they may not have been specifically designed to do so.
Are you concerned about the wording there? Should we not say “capable of” rather than “designed to”?