Full Capacity Magazine Repair/Replacement?

[ajw45]

So we've established that post-ban magazines are illegal in Massachusetts. However, what is the legality of replacing a damaged pre-ban magazine tube with a new (post ban) magazine tube?

 

[Lugnut]

It's my understanding that the tube is the ONLY thing that can't legally be replaced. I called Sigarms about this to check- they can send springs, followers, floor plates and retainers... but NOT tubes.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Excellent question and I do NOT have an answer to this.

The Fed Ban actually allowed one to rebuild a mag (INCLUDING tube IIRC) as long as one was replacing a legal pre-ban mag tube.

I doubt that the "mental midgets on the hill" in Boston ever considered this or addressed it in MGL. However if they did, I never recall having seen this in the law.

What companies refuse to ship here can NOT be used as a basis to determine if something is legal or not. Some companies will not ship the standard wood stocks for some military rifles to MA, yet they will ship other rifle stocks! No rhyme or reason to some of this stuff.

 

[matt]

If you do it, I'd keep your pre-ban tube to show how you ended up with a post-pre-ban magazine... I couldn't comment on the legality of it though...

 

[Lugnut]

The Fed Ban actually allowed one to rebuild a mag (INCLUDING tube IIRC) as long as one was replacing a legal pre-ban mag tube.

This would be good to know.. however I can't see how it would be legal as you could basically end up with a brand new magazine. Either way- I've stocked up with a bunch on nice prebans so I should be good for a while.

 

[jacobtowne]

How could anyone determine whether the body of a magazine, or any other part for that matter, is pre- or post-ban? Are they labelled?
JT

 

[Len-2A Training]

Glock mags have all/most of the parts marked with a P/N and those have changed over the years.

In General:
Some mags have changed designs since the Fed ban went into place, some materials used may have changed, etc.

The problem is that you or I may not see the difference, but someone who knows what to look for may be able to tell the difference and nail someone's ass.

 

[hminsky]

Has there been any actual case of someone in MA being prosecuted for owning a large capcity magazine?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Has there been any actual case of someone in MA being prosecuted for owning a large capcity magazine?

I am told "yes" and I think I recall reading of such charges just recently. They are usually "add on" charges, used to coerce a plea bargain for genuine bad guys. Problem is that a good guy/gal has nothing to "trade" so that if they were charged with this, they will get screwed.

 

[Lugnut]

It would good to hear a lawyer's take on all this. [roll] I try to be real careful about this stuff as I not only don't want to go to jail- but I don't want to lose the ability to keep and carry guns for the rest of my life!

I have a bunch of preban Sig mags for my 226, 228 and 229s- I am almost 100% certain they are all preban (they were sold to me as preban as well)- but I don't have a chemistry degree to find out for certain! MASS sucks in this regard! I don't even care so much about the capacity... I just want to own the magazines the guns are designed to have!

 

[boston_007]

I recently dropped and cracked a preban Sig P228 high cap. magazine floorplate; the magazine was full when it hit the pavement. The original floorplate is unmarked. The new floorplate from Sig is marked with a 12 round sundial dated 02. In your humble, and not so humble, opinions what is the legality of installing a dated floorplate on an otherwise preban magazine?

 

[Lugnut]

I recently dropped and cracked a preban Sig P228 high cap. magazine floorplate; the magazine was full when it hit the pavement. The original floorplate is unmarked. The new floorplate from Sig is marked with a 12 round sundial dated 02. In your humble, and not so humble, opinions what is the legality of installing a dated floorplate on an otherwise preban magazine?

I specifically called Sig and several other folks and asked them these questions a while ago. They (Sig) will send any and all parts to repair a magazine LESS the tube. I am 99.99% certain that this is completely legit. I've replaced MANY preban mag floorplates on my Sigs. It's baffling that they even date the floorplates. The tube is the "frame" of the magazine.

Of course I'm not an attorney....

 

[drgrant]

The federal standard was that the TUBE is the "regulated part" of the
magazine, eg, its what made a magazine a magazine. During the ban the
BATFE said that one could replace the followers, floorplates, and springs
without being guilty of "constructing" a "new" magazine. (edit, len says
that even the tubes were replaceable.... but reality showed that getting
a "new" tube during the ban was pretty much impossible, since manufactuers
couldnt legally be making unmarked tubes domestically).

Theoretically, MA law pretaining to mags and so called "assault
weapons" and the like is a virtual carbon copy of the AWB. Of course,
this is MA and anything that could possibly be retarded about legal interpretation
is usually possible. What really sucks about the whole hicap
issue is that there is literally no case law on the issue (at least not that I've
seen) so its relatively uncharted territory.

My -personal- feeling is that the issue could be spirited away in court
by arguing that the replaced part is "new" but that it's not actually a
different magazine. That is, of course, assuming that the issue
ever actually even came up, somehow. A lack of case law leads
me to believe that most/all prosecutions thus far involving "large capacity" magazines
occur on people who don't have the appropriate license to posess
them, not on the basis of "provenance." Of course, theres always the
"test case", and -nobody- wants to be "that guy". Course, IANAL, and it's
just an opinion. Take it or leave it, for whatever it is or isnt worth.

If any of the resident lawyers know of case law, please post it. It would be
an interesting read. I used a few legal search engines and i couldnt find anything,
aside from some criminals getting bagged for having stuff without licenses.

-Mike

 

[dwarven1]

I suspect that keeping the paperwork showing you ordered a new floorplate might be a good thing from a CYA standpoint.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I know that I stated this here some time ago.

Although MGL now is a mirror (language-wise) of the old Fed ban, the mag repair questions were in the BATFE Regs and FAQ, not in the law itself.

BATFE maintains a Technical Branch which addresses these questions.

MA on the other hand has deferred legal questions to the CHSB where most employees are bean counters and clerks. Only lawyer at CHSB is the director, Caroline Sawyer.

MA does not seem to address these types of issues at all, leaving everyone hanging.

Wrt to markings on the floorplate: Unless the new floorplate made the mag able to hold more than 10 rds, it should (IANAL) be perfectly legal regardless of markings on it. If some anti-zealot LEO spotted it, you could be in for a "tough ride" but should ultimately win (after spending $ to defend yourself) if push ever came to shove.

 

[Scrivener]

MA on the other hand has deferred legal questions to the CHSB where most employees are bean counters and clerks. Only lawyer at CHSB is the director, Caroline Sawyer.

So CHSB Executive Director Barry LaCroix WASN'T my law school classmate and I was just hallucinating all four years?

 

[dwarven1]

I was just hallucinating all four years?

Damn... what WERE you smoking, Keith??

 

[Rob Boudrie]

BATF specically ruled that it was legal to sell replacement tubes during the ban, however, they applied a rigorous "non-convertability" standard to 10 round magazines sold. Despite assertions to the contrary, there was never a specific BATF determination that "the tube is the regulated part."

As a matter of policy, pre-existing any ban, there are certain parts manufacturers won't sell separately. Just try ordering a separate frame from S&W, Sig or Ruger if you doubt the biggies won't sell certain legal parts separately.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Keith,

I have no idea what you were eating/smoking during your 4 years in law school, I didn't know you back then.

Also we have a forum policy here of "Don't ask, Don't tell!"

I know of folks that have called CHSB and spoken with Caroline Sawyer and I have been told that she's an attorney. I am unaware of anyone here or even Licensing Officers talking with Barry LaCroix . . . I get the impression that he is "high up there" in one of the "untouchable offices" that damn near nobody from the outside has contact with. [It is just an impression by lack of seeing him referred to except on an org chart. It may or may not be true in fact.]

I do know that the CPA (name escapes me now) has numerous times given legal answers to callers . . . often incorrect advice. I understand that he means well, but just doesn't have the expertise to answer the legal questions that get thrown to them and he just tries to be helpful!

 

[cdkayak]

I suspect that keeping the paperwork showing you ordered a new floorplate might be a good thing from a CYA standpoint.

This is what I did during the fed ban. I had repaired a couple of 20s for the AR by replacing the mag body. I crushed the old one & kept it with the reciept and put a sticker on the new one to ID what body it replaced. Luckily I've been able to toss all that extra stuff now.

CD

 

[Scrivener]

I know of folks that have called CHSB and spoken with Caroline Sawyer and I have been told that she's an attorney. I am unaware of anyone here or even Licensing Officers talking with Barry LaCroix . . . I get the impression that he is "high up there" in one of the "untouchable offices" that damn near nobody from the outside has contact with. [It is just an impression by lack of seeing him referred to except on an org chart. It may or may not be true in fact.]

Len;

Here he is in all his official glory:

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eopsutilities&L=1&sid=Eeops&U=chsb_welcome_page

If I had a question though, I'd ask Cal. Note that she was at Independent yesterday, observing the revolver shoot.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Scrivener,

That official page does nothing to change my opinion of his "accessibility", not to mention what he might know or not about guns and gun law (many attorneys know nothing about either). He sounds like an IS guy to bring computerization to CJ for MA.

WHY was Caroline "observing the revolver shoot"?? Is she a shooter, looking for violations, or trying to figure out what a "target gun" is? [Pardon my suspicion, but I don't trust bureaucrats.]

 

[LoginName]

Very outdated, but worth the read...

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter6.txt

This letter is on the Letterhead of the Director, Department of the
Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Washington, D.C.
20226, Sep 13 1994

Dear Manufacturer:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, was recently passed by Congress,
and became effective September 13, 1994. This law may affect firearm
magazines produced by your firm, and/or magazines supplied with certain
firearms you manufacture.

This law prohibits the transfer or possession of large capacity
ammunition feeding devices manufactured after the effective date of the
statute. The prohibition does not apply to any large capacity
ammunition feeding devices lawfully possessed on or before the effective
date of the Act. Large capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured
or imported after the effective date may only be transferred to
government agencies and specifically listed law enforcement personnel.

Snip....

Until regulations are issued, any large capacity feeding devices you
produce after the law becomes effective must be marked with a serial
number that clearly shows that the device was manufactured or imported
after the effective date of the law. All large capacity ammunition
feeding devices you produce or import may have the same serial number.
Additionally, large capacity feeding devices must be marked with the
name, city, and State of the manufacturer and in the case of an imported
device, the name of the manufacturer and country of origin. Further,
large capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured or imported after
the effective date of the law must also be marked "RESTRICTED LAW
ENFORCEMENT/GOVERNMENT USE ONLY." The above markings must be cast,
stamped, or engraved on the exterior of the device. In the case of a
magazine, the markings must be placed on the magazine body.

FWIW, the text of the old 94 federal AWB stated that it was up to the Government to prove that any "large capacity feeding device" was illegal to possess...

"`(4) If a person charged with violating paragraph (1) asserts that paragraph (1) does not apply to such person because of paragraph (2) or (3), the Government shall have the burden of proof to show that such paragraph (1) applies to such person. The lack of a serial number as described in section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, shall be a presumption that the large capacity ammunition feeding device is not subject to the prohibition of possession in paragraph (1).'.

As noted in a previous post, the ATF/FBI have the means, equipment and experience to easily determine when a magazine was manufactured despite the lack of any markings or incorrect markings (it's possible the MA State Police crime lab has the same ability).

I have no idea how MA law addresses replacing the mag body for a damaged part (the law doesn't have any language "or parts that could be used to assemble a large capacity feeding device"). Apparently though, CA law has some sort of loophole. Quite a few times I've read in various "for sale" forums on other gun related websites that a person could legally ship post-ban hi-cap mags to CA as long as they sent the bodies seperate from the springs, followers, floorplates. I belive that catch is that it would be illegal for the person reciveing them to assemble a new "hi-cap" mag. Proving it is another matter.

 

[Scrivener]

That official page does nothing to change my opinion of his "accessibility", not to mention what he might know or not about guns and gun law (many attorneys know nothing about either). He sounds like an IS guy to bring computerization to CJ for MA.

Yeah, another one of those IS guys who went to law school... Note also that he was the original chairman of the FLRB; another one of those IS functions....

WHY was Caroline "observing the revolver shoot"?? Is she a shooter, looking for violations, or trying to figure out what a "target gun" is? [Pardon my suspicion, but I don't trust bureaucrats.]

She was there because I invited her.

She had originally planned to shoot, but decided to wait until she had more practice. It was also a superb opportunity to see what are - and are NOT - "formal target shooting competition" guns.

Note that CHSB has no enforcement jurisdiction, which makes your remark about "looking for violations" somewhat odd.

 

[drgrant]

BATF specically ruled that it was legal to sell replacement tubes during the ban, however, they applied a rigorous "non-convertability" standard to 10 round magazines sold. Despite assertions to the contrary, there was never a specific BATF determination that "the tube is the regulated part."

The problem is that BATFE contradicted itself- it was okay to sell
the tubes, but not to produce them without crime bill markings. The
manufacturers knew if they were pumping out unmarked tubes that
the ATF would come back and whine about it, guaranteed, even if such
whining was contary to their ruling.

Problem is, tubes with crime bill markings, under the federal law, were
essentially a slam dunk conviction. So the whole thing was a
non starter. Nobody sold "new" unmarked tubes because it was
way too easy for the feds to say you were building new magazines.

And further, followers and floorplates broke far more often... so if a
manufacturer wanted to avoid a "conspiracy" type charge, they didnt
make unmarked tubes.

Any vendors selling unmarked tubes during the ban were either selling
new old stock (eg, preban tubes) or stuff smuggled from other countries.
If the tubes were legal to acquire, the preban mags wouldn't have
cost nearly as much as they did, because some less than
scrupulous people would have illegally assembled them out of the parts and gotten
the mags onto the market. During the ban one could not call up
sigarms or whoever and say "Hey, my preban magazine tubes are all worn out
and rusted, can I get some new ones?" and then get new tubes in the
mail... even if they did sell you tubes, those tubes were pumped out
before the ban. No manufacturer was going to risk some sort of
conspiracy drilling by the BATF to pump out new unmarked tubes, followers,
and floorplates, and have them sitting around the factory. (constructive
possession, anyone?) .

So yes, you're right that the law doesnt SAY that the tube is the
regulated part- but by virtue of what happened on the ground, it
-became- the regulated part. (EG, tubes with crime bill markings were
"regulated", as in they couldn't be possessed by those who werent law
enforcement or military). The way the law was written, if someone
asserted that their mags were preban, and there were no markings on the
tube, then that assertion was to be accepted at face value. If marked,
then guilty as charged. The legalese in federal law specifically
addressed this issue. (The idea was ostensibly to prevent this sort of
confusion that were talking about in the thread.... so the feds were VERY
specific about what "evidence" constituted an illegal magazine.).

-Mike

 

[dwarven1]

So are the new mags still required to be marked by the manufacturer? If not, are any being produced that are marked, and why?

 

[drgrant]

So are the new mags still required to be marked by the manufacturer? If not, are any being produced that are marked, and why?

No, since the AWB is null, federally speaking, the crime bill marking requirement is gone.

I think Ruger, however, is still being a bunch of commies and making 20 round
Mini-14 magazines with the markings on them, but that's par for the
course for that company. ( the late bill ruger sr is an asshat that
insinuated to congress that limiting capacity to 15 rounds or less would be
a good idea.... )


-Mike

 

[Len-2A Training]

New AR15 military mags also have DOB on them. I saw them at the Concord NH show.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Scrivener,

Just because someone is named to the GCAB or FLRB doesn't mean that they are a lawyer or even understand our laws! Most of these appointments are cast in stone by the legislature as part of the makeup of the various bodies/committees that get authorized.

So, drawing an assumption that someone is a lawyer since they sit on a committee or even were chairman of said committee is a serious stretch.

Although I know that CHSB has not enforcement jurisdiction, I am also aware of some steps that they have taken to pull some muscle and even change this.

- CHSB has stated that they go in to MA Dealers and bring BATFE with them, look for violations and "offer a deal" of handing over all licenses or face prosecution. Don't know if they are still doing it, as I heard Bill Pickett (who has been gone from there for a few years now) admit it but more recent info seems to imply that they are still doing this.

- Bill Pickett actually filed a bill (that went nowhere) that would have given him full LE powers in his role of running the agency. Had that been passed, Caroline would be in that position (LE) today. Not a rumor, I actually read the text of it when it was on the state website.

- I saw Pickett trolling around the Rockingham gun show some years ago with a Salem, NH PO. This when he was running the agency, and a lot of dealers at this NH show are MA Dealers. You can draw your own conclusion as to why he was there.

 

[Scrivener]

Just because someone is named to the GCAB or FLRB doesn't mean that they are a lawyer or even understand our laws! Most of these appointments are cast in stone by the legislature as part of the makeup of the various bodies/committees that get authorized.

So, drawing an assumption that someone is a lawyer since they sit on a committee or even were chairman of said committee is a serious stretch.

Not as big a "serious stretch" as ignoring some facts and inverting others. You just did both.

First, Barry LaCroix IS an attorney, your wild speculations about "IS" and blatantly ignoring my post to that effect notwithstanding.

Second, his postition on the FLRB is a function of being Executive Director of the CHSB; not being an attorney. He was an attorney first; ED later. I never confused the two; apparently you did - to the extent you acknowledged his being an attorney at all, which you now seem to question.

Third, there was no "assumption that someone is a lawyer since they sit on a committee or even were chairman of said committee" - unless and until YOU made it, in which case the mistake was and is yours. The FLRB has only one seat expressly to be filled by an attorney - mine. Whether other members are attorneys is, as you noted, secondary to the statutory slot. However, LaCroix is an attorney, whether you choose to acknowledge that fact or not. I suggest that fact is a major reason WHY he's the ED of the CHSB. Your utterly unfounded speculation about "IS" remains devoid of any proffer of proof.