Extra round in the magazine

[Hanwei]

Where's Keith?

 

[Ish]

I have the solution: You send me your 2 mags. and I send you 2 of mine, I can carry as many I want in FL

Ish.

 

[mbz4ever]

Do these mags have the original factory base plates on them?

There are after market base plates that extend the capacity of the magazines.

those are factory original mags with 10 round stamped on them.

 

[buketduder]

These hold 12..but all you see is 10 on the mag...i think there are some finger extensions that are +1 and some that are +0 (just extensions)...so you might not know if you got it from someone or bought it...

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/MAG734-36.html

 

[Zappa]

Stock G27 mags hold 9 rounds. There's no way you can stuff a 10th in there. Pearce makes both +1 and +2 floorplates. I have a +1 floorplate on one of my three G27 mags, and now it hold 10. I tried, but I can get an 11th in there. Here's the part where the law may come back to screw us:

or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition

Who's to say what the words readily converted mean here?
Does it mean "with easily available parts" ?
If so, the very existence of these +2 floorplates can make legal 9 round Glock mags illegal under state law.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Mike, I never stated which county DA was trying to prosecute. Glock's Legal Counsel didn't tell me and I didn't ask . . . but he did say that multiple DAs had queried him from MA (could have been ADAs from one county or multiple counties).

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Another thing to be aware of- most prosecutors don't bother with the AW ban charge because most real criminals can get whacked on illegal possession of an LCAFD instead, if they don't have a license. This charge is in a different part of MGL (and has nothing to do with the AWB) and the standard of evidence is far simpler. (you catch a guy without an LTC that has a LCAFD in his possesion, and it's a slam dunk comparatively speaking, to an AWB charge.. )

I honestly think most DAs/Prosecutors don't bother with the MA AWB crap because it's a tough road to hoe with little likely success. They probably use the threat of it though, in some cases. (it's another felony they can throw on the pile during plea bargaining).

-Mike

All the more reason not to get too twisted up about unwittingly running afoul of the AWB through something like this. Not that I'm suggesting that people take the AWB lightly.

However, absent the commission of another prosecutable crime, your chances of suffering at the hands of the AWB are about as high as seeing the next NRA convention keynote address delivered by Sarah Brady.

Just for the record, that doesn't mean flaunt the law!

ETA: If it was me I would not loose one wink of sleep over my post-ban 10 round mags actually accepting 11 rounds. It's just an extra '1'.

 

[MassMark]

ETA: If it was me I would not loose one wink of sleep over my post-ban 10 round mags actually accepting 11 rounds.

Me too neither...

 

[dcmdon]

deleted

 

[Blitz1]

ETA: If it was me I would not loose one wink of sleep over my post-ban 10 round mags actually accepting 11 rounds. It's just an extra '1'.

Me too neither...

I probably wouldn't announce it on the web though.

 

[GSG]

Does any one experienced this?

No, but then again, I've never tried, I count my ammo as I load my mags...one extra round isn't worth a broken or otherwise out of whack spring that could result from overloading the mags.

I'd dump the mags. Despite the fact that they're designed to hold ten rounds of 9mm, they're holding over ten rounds. That means that they're large capacity, and, if not manufactured prior to 9/13/1994, that means you have magazines that are illegal to possess.

Remember, unless the Glock mag has an ambi mag notch or LEO/MIL only markings, then as far as Glock is concerned it's pre-ban.

Has anyone actually met or know of someone that got caught using a hi-capacity non pre-ban mag?

I've only ever heard of two cases where the cops got involved in a post-ban AW case, and both were mentioned here on NES.

The first one was posted in this thread.

The second I can't link to because my green membership has lapsed, but IIRC it was a thread originally posted by efowke in the NES members forum which was titled "Maybe I'm just too suspicious." It's an insanely long thread with a lot of suppositions and hazy conclusions drawn, but it seems like that's what it was.

Another thing to be aware of- most prosecutors don't bother with the AW ban charge because most real criminals can get whacked on illegal possession of an LCAFD instead, if they don't have a license. This charge is in a different part of MGL (and has nothing to do with the AWB) and the standard of evidence is far simpler. (you catch a guy without an LTC that has a LCAFD in his possesion, and it's a slam dunk comparatively speaking, to an AWB charge.. )

I honestly think most DAs/Prosecutors don't bother with the MA AWB crap because it's a tough road to hoe with little likely success. They probably use the threat of it though, in some cases. (it's another felony they can throw on the pile during plea bargaining).

To elaborate on what you've said...when someone posesses a high cap mag without a license (typically a criminal), they're in violation of MGL 269-10m. This only applies to someone without an LTC.

When anyone in the state posesses a post-1994 AWB high cap mag (except for issued weapons with police) they're in violation of MGL 140-131m. This applies even if one has an LTC.

Both are felonies too.

But, like you said, when it's a 269-10m violation, the only standard is if they posessed it, whereas with a 140-131m violation there's a lot more that can come into play.

I think we don't see many prosecutions for the post-ban violations in Mass. simply because of ignorance by law enforcement, or because of feigned ignorance by the ones who don't care. Most DA's and cops couldn't tell you the difference in a pre-ban/post-ban magazine or AR, just because it's such a small yet intricate area of the law. I'm willing to bet that most cops will stop asking questions if they see guns and an LTC on an otherwise law abiding citizen. I think we'd be more likely to see an FFL getting in trouble for this if they had sold a bunch of post-ban AR-15's or something, but even then I'd say they'd probably have better odds playing the lottery.

When I lived in Mass., my concern wasn't so much about what was legal, but what my local police chief considered "suitable" behavior, or if it would be setting me up to get Nifong-ed by a prosecutor with plans to make a name for themselves out of my case.

IMO, the typical roadside traffic stop wouldn't result in a 140-131m violation, but something more in depth like a restraining order or license suspension (where the cops show up to sieze and inventory your gun collection), or a post-shooting investigation definitely might.

Even then chances are slim...a few years ago a co-worker of mine had their LTC and gun taken because of a 209A, and all the loaded mags for the gun were post-ban with blatant LEO/military only markings on them, but nothing ever came of it.

Do these mags have the original factory base plates on them?

There are after market base plates that extend the capacity of the magazines.

That was my thought too, but apparently not.

The thing is if he had a pearce plate on it it would add 2 rounds, not 1. I don't think pearce makes a +1 for the 9mm glock mags.

I don't think they did either, but I've heard of people with 10 round G30 mags that only take 9 rounds simply because of tiny variations in the fit of the follower and floorplates, so it stands to reason that the opposite could be true as well.

 

[Monty]

Here's a real simple potential problem. I have a 9mm that can readily accept and feed 9mm from a .40 magazine, designed to hold the legal ten .40 rounds. It could easily hold more than ten 9mm rounds, without over compressing the spring.

 

[GSG]

Here's a real simple potential problem. I have a 9mm that can readily accept and feed 9mm from a .40 magazine, designed to hold the legal ten .40 rounds. It could easily hold more than ten 9mm rounds, without over compressing the spring.

See post #6 in this thread.

Basically, as far as ATF is concerned, it's legal as long as the magazine still works in the gun it was originally intended for.

But Mass. law regarding post-ban high cap mags (MGL 140-131m) don't adopt the entire federal 1994 assault weapons ban (like the parts that say what constitutes a pre-ban mag, what doesn't), so the whole thing can be a very gray area, as far as I can see.

But I'm no lawyer.