I have a handful of preban 15 round sig magazines. Does anybody know the legality of adding extensions to them in Massachusetts?
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
15, 20, 1,000. Once you're pre-ban it really doesn't matter.
those were my thoughts also.15, 20, 1,000. Once you're pre-ban it really doesn't matter.
Sort of.
Trouble starts when an existing pre-ban mag manufactured for one firearm is modified to function
in a different firearm and no longer functions in in the firearm it was originally intended for.
Under the old AWB, the ATF considered that manufacturing a new large capacity feeding device
(I realize this doesn't apply to the question the OP's friend is asking about)
How that would play out under current MA law anyone can probably guess.
Then again... IANAL.
Seems like the consensus is yes, it's ok. But free legal advice is worth what you paid for it. IANAL
2020 thread
2015 thread, kinda relevant
2013 thread
Note the "no longer functions in the firearm it was manufacturer for". The converted Uzi mags work in both Colt and UZI 9x19 guns.Not to thread steal, but would that mean an UZI to Colt conversion would be no-go in MA? 'Cause my cousin's friend of a friend hypothetically found a place a few months ago that shipped preban UZI mags for cheap (like $13. per) and this person I don't know stocked up on 4 to do this in the future.
Note the "no longer functions in the firearm it was manufacturer for". The converted Uzi mags work in both Colt and UZI 9x19 guns.
Also keep in mind that anyone who claims to know fine point nuances of the MA AW ban/mag ban is just guessing, not matter how much authority they claim to speak with.
Probably not very if you implemented it Colt style. On the other hand there is a design that would work nicely in both but requires a bit more work.The conversion I was eyeballing did involve some more work than just milling out a new mag catch notch and lowering the "U" channel. I was going to attempt to do a LRBHO job, and I'm not sure if that changed how they would work in an UZI. I mean, my friend's cousin was going to try it.
He needs a Goliath +30.Op got a 1000 round mag hypothetically
Man, this water is cold.
He needs a Goliath +30.
They only work on Preban FML - Fully Metal Lined - Drop Free mags.
Goliath Large Mags - Taylorfreelance
taylorfreelancestore.com
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6E3qvUxpms&feature=emb_logo
47 rounds of 9mm!
And the chair is up against the wall.Man, this water is cold.
I have a few preban 92f mags that came with the gun which was made in 1989.Note the "no longer functions in the firearm it was manufacturer for". The converted Uzi mags work in both Colt and UZI 9x19 guns.
Also keep in mind that anyone who claims to know fine point nuances of the MA AW ban/mag ban is just guessing, not matter how much authority they claim to speak with.
Model jury instruction regarding unlawful possession of large capacity weapons and/or feeding devices
From Comm. v. Cassidy, 479 Mass. 427 (2018) appendix.www.mass.gov
Notice the absence of the term, "preban."
The definition of “large capacity feeding device” explicitly excludes anything made before 1994.
Therefore a magazine manufactured in 1993 is NOT a “large capacity feeding device” even if it holds 30 rounds.
This is like rifles made before 1994 that have more than two evil features are not “assault weapons”, but the same thing made in 1995, is.
The definition of “large capacity feeding device” explicitly excludes anything made before 1994.
Therefore a magazine manufactured in 1993 is NOT a “large capacity feeding device” even if it holds 30 rounds.
This is like rifles made before 1994 that have more than two evil features are not “assault weapons”, but the same thing made in 1995, is.
I am 100% certain the prosecutor would make no effort explaining that magazines made prior to 1994 are exempt, and that the defense would have to make sure this is known.
How the F could i prove my mags are preban with no markings?
Is it the strategy of the state to make me prove the manufacture date? IMHO that's their job.
Or does state continue to prosecute to box people into a financial jam?
jury instructions said:In order to prove the defendant guilty of this offense, the Commonwealth must prove four elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the defendant possessed an item;
Second: That the item meets the legal definition of "large capacity (weapon) (feeding device)";"
...
That is indeed what the law says, but I've seen it in practice and it does NOT work that way in real life in MA!You don't have to prove it's pre-ban. They have to prove it's a "large capacity feeding device"
Once charges are filed, it is not about justice, but each side fighting for a win regardless of guilt or innocence. Prosecutors are as accepting of a conviction for an innocent defendant as defense attorneys are when they help a guilty person beat the rap.There are authorities out there that will play ball with these anti prosecutors to ensure that someone gets convicted (unjustly)!
The burden of proof would be on the .gov in that case.I guess my question is, with no way for me to prove the magazines were made in 1989, would I be prosecuted for having a large capacity feeding device?
And I am sorry for hijacking this thread. I'll stop.
You certainly could be. It'll be up to your attorney to get you out of it. That's reality regardless of law!!I guess my question is, with no way for me to prove the magazines were made in 1989, would I be prosecuted for having a large capacity feeding device?
And I am sorry for hijacking this thread. I'll stop.