LE/Military marked mags

Status
Not open for further replies.

gulfmp

NES Member
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
1,486
Likes
142
Location
Central MA
Does anyone know the law, or case history, for the legality of a person in possession of LE/Military marked Glock 22 hi-cap magazines that was formerly in law enforcement when they bought the magazines, but no longer works in the field. They were legally purchased at the time, but he now works in a differant (other than law enforcement) capacity.

I searched old threads for this topic, but didn't find a question specifically about this
 
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
12,171
Likes
1,237
It's a felony for a MA resident to privately own any mag of > 10 round capacity that was manufactured after Sept '94. There are no exceptions and that includes current or former police officers.

(IANAL)
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
8,704
Likes
1,493
Location
Central Ma.
It's a felony for a MA resident to privately own any mag of > 10 round capacity that was manufactured after Sept '94. There are no exceptions and that includes current or former police officers.

(IANAL)
*******
I guess that makes me an Enemy of the State.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
536
Likes
41
Location
South East MA
Does anyone know the law, or case history, for the legality of a person in possession of LE/Military marked Glock 22 hi-cap magazines that was formerly in law enforcement when they bought the magazines, but no longer works in the field. They were legally purchased at the time, but he now works in a differant (other than law enforcement) capacity.

I searched old threads for this topic, but didn't find a question specifically about this
Thought might have read something about being retired from the force can also carry on the badge. I'd have to ask around for you. I know a supervisor who's spot on with the glock mag stuff. You mentioned military/LE marked? Are you referring to where the G is located? That tells you when the mag was made. Are there some other marking that your referring to? I ask because my hi cap mags don't have any other markings then the G logo.
 
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
528
Likes
144
Thought might have read something about being retired from the force can also carry on the badge. I'd have to ask around for you. I know a supervisor who's spot on with the glock mag stuff. You mentioned military/LE marked? Are you referring to where the G is located? That tells you when the mag was made. Are there some other marking that your referring to? I ask because my hi cap mags don't have any other markings then the G logo.
No. What he's referring to is mags that were made between the start of the '94 Federal AW ban and the 2004 sunset, which by law had to be marked "For LE/gov't use only" if they were above 10 rounds capacity. Since the sunset of the federal ban they generally do not mark mags like this anymore (which is why there are pre-ban, ban, and post-ban categories of magazines to be aware of).

The current interpretation from EOPS is that these are legal only for LE/gov't employees in their active government duties - that is, the LEO can carry a high-cap on patrol, but can't posses them at home for their personal defense. That hasn't necessarily been the interpretation in the past, and I don't know of any LEO actually charged with post-ban high cap possession.
 

gulfmp

NES Member
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
1,486
Likes
142
Location
Central MA
The current interpretation from EOPS is that these are legal only for LE/gov't employees in their active government duties - that is, the LEO can carry a high-cap on patrol, but can't posses them at home for their personal defense. That hasn't necessarily been the interpretation in the past, and I don't know of any LEO actually charged with post-ban high cap possession.
It just seems wrong for someone to have to get rid of property that they legally purchased at the time (The department allowed use of private firearms for work so long as they qualified with them). Being this state though it should be expected!
 
Rating - 100%
55   0   0
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
30,781
Likes
8,650
Location
free hampshire
Thought might have read something about being retired from the force can also carry on the badge. I'd have to ask around for you. I know a supervisor who's spot on with the glock mag stuff. You mentioned military/LE marked? Are you referring to where the G is located? That tells you when the mag was made. Are there some other marking that your referring to? I ask because my hi cap mags don't have any other markings then the G logo.
no it doesn't. not even glock will identify when a mag was manufactured, because they don't play this bullshit. neg repping you for BS info.

as it currently stands the easiest way to determine an "old-ass" mag is the U-notch, and a new-ass mag will be the ambi mag catch release which is for sure a new production magazine. everything in the middle is "whatever" status. if the mag is not marked LE/gov this is how you can "kinda" tell.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
536
Likes
41
Location
South East MA
No. What he's referring to is mags that were made between the start of the '94 Federal AW ban and the 2004 sunset, which by law had to be marked "For LE/gov't use only" if they were above 10 rounds capacity. Since the sunset of the federal ban they generally do not mark mags like this anymore (which is why there are pre-ban, ban, and post-ban categories of magazines to be aware of).

The current interpretation from EOPS is that these are legal only for LE/gov't employees in their active government duties - that is, the LEO can carry a high-cap on patrol, but can't posses them at home for their personal defense. That hasn't necessarily been the interpretation in the past, and I don't know of any LEO actually charged with post-ban high cap possession.
Thank you for the clarification. That's why i was asking what exactly he was referring to. Like I said, I know depending on the year the G symbol is stamped in a different location or not at all on the mags.
 
Rating - 100%
55   0   0
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
30,781
Likes
8,650
Location
free hampshire
Thank you for the clarification. That's why i was asking what exactly he was referring to. Like I said, I know depending on the year the G symbol is stamped in a different location or not at all on the mags.
[video=youtube_share;WrjwaqZfjIY]http://youtu.be/WrjwaqZfjIY[/video]

negged AGAIN. goddamn dude, stop spreading bullshit, we're not trying to fertilize a field here.
 
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
6,101
Likes
1,648
Location
Deep in the woods of SC
[video=youtube_share;WrjwaqZfjIY]http://youtu.be/WrjwaqZfjIY[/video]

negged AGAIN. goddamn dude, stop spreading bullshit, we're not trying to fertilize a field here.

Damn dude you ****ed him up. That is the first red block I have seen on the forum. What is your rep power? How many points are you taking w/ each neg rep?
Love the Dr Cox by BTW he is hands down the funniest person on that show...
 

RKG

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,718
Likes
515
Location
Boston
It's a felony for a MA resident to privately own any mag of > 10 round capacity that was manufactured after Sept '94. There are no exceptions and that includes current or former police officers.

(IANAL)
This misses the mark on a couple of points:

Prohibition is not limited to Massachusetts residents.

Prohibition is not ownership, but rather "sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess".

There is a limited exception for police officers.

Full text of relevant statute:



Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.
 
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
6,101
Likes
1,648
Location
Deep in the woods of SC
This misses the mark on a couple of points:

Prohibition is not limited to Massachusetts residents.

Prohibition is not ownership, but rather "sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess".

There is a limited exception for police officers.

Full text of relevant statute:



Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.
Ummm you proved yourself wrong with your own post. read the first line of the law again. Pay special attention to the word POSSESS! Possession IS ownership. Here I made it bold for you....
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
20,830
Likes
9,872
Location
NH (CT Escapee)
Damn dude you ****ed him up. That is the first red block I have seen on the forum. What is your rep power? How many points are you taking w/ each neg rep?
Love the Dr Cox by BTW he is hands down the funniest person on that show...
Rep power is disabled here. It's only one point up or down each time. It got "out of hand" shall we say a while back.

He's definitely not the first person to go red, though I'll say that being in the red usually means you don't hang out for very long historically speaking.
 

WallHack

Banned
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
5,042
Likes
1,072
Location
The Theater District
Rep power is disabled here. It's only one point up or down each time. It got "out of hand" shall we say a while back.

He's definitely not the first person to go red, though I'll say that being in the red usually means you don't hang out for very long historically speaking.
Yeah, and Primus has been getting negged quite a bit in the.... week? Two weeks? He's been on here. Quite a few of those were me [rolleyes]
 

Lucas

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
187
Likes
10
Location
Massachusetts
Sorry to jump in on this thread. Have a question. The LE/GOV label issue, do you mean that before 1994 magazines did not reference LE/GOV Use Only?

Sent from my mini iPad, because it's way cooler than my laptop, using Forum Runner
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.1%
52   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
51,475
Likes
9,159
Location
Escaping to NH
To the OP:

Current "interpretation" by EOPS is that ALL post-9/13/1994 large-cap mags MUST be owned by the department. None can be personally owned at any time by current LEOs. The law says upon retirement the PD/department can gift the mags to the retiring officer but there is no mention of how you prove that.

There isn't much respect in LE for that interpretation, but it is the current attitude in MA!
 
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
14,000
Likes
1,511
Location
New Hampshire
Sorry to jump in on this thread. Have a question. The LE/GOV label issue, do you mean that before 1994 magazines did not reference LE/GOV Use Only?

Sent from my mini iPad, because it's way cooler than my laptop, using Forum Runner
Right. The "Restricted Law Enforcement / Gov't Use Only" label was etched into magazine bodies and/or magazine floor plates during the 1994-2004 Federal AWB period.

Slaves in Massachusetts are still prohibited from owning them.
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.1%
52   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
51,475
Likes
9,159
Location
Escaping to NH
Sorry to jump in on this thread. Have a question. The LE/GOV label issue, do you mean that before 1994 magazines did not reference LE/GOV Use Only?

Sent from my mini iPad, because it's way cooler than my laptop, using Forum Runner
Correct. That marking was mandated by BATFE for all mags made between 9/13/1994 thru 9/12/2004.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
5,452
Likes
1,700
Ummm you proved yourself wrong with your own post. read the first line of the law again. Pay special attention to the word POSSESS! Possession IS ownership. Here I made it bold for you....
No. For example, a drug mule could possess a brick of cocaine, but he doesn't own it. Ownership and possession aren't the same.
 

Lucas

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
187
Likes
10
Location
Massachusetts
Right. The "Restricted Law Enforcement / Gov't Use Only" label was etched into magazine bodies and/or magazine floor plates during the 1994-2004 Federal AWB period.

Slaves in Massachusetts are still prohibited from owning them.
Thank you
From a slave......:)

Sent from my mini iPad, because it's way cooler than my laptop, using Forum Runner
 

gulfmp

NES Member
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
1,486
Likes
142
Location
Central MA
To the OP:

Current "interpretation" by EOPS is that ALL post-9/13/1994 large-cap mags MUST be owned by the department. None can be personally owned at any time by current LEOs. The law says upon retirement the PD/department can gift the mags to the retiring officer but there is no mention of how you prove that.

There isn't much respect in LE for that interpretation, but it is the current attitude in MA!
Len, is this a "new" interpretation with current people in that position? Did it change from a prior ruling? Is there any known case law regarding this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom